RATAN LAL KEDIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application made by the petitioner in the year, 1983 for grant of licence under Form No. XII for storage and sale of certain arms and ammunitions under Rule 24(1) of the Arms Rules not attending finality despite passage of two decades is the background under which the present writ application came to be filed. Even after filing of the writ application in the year, 2004 it has taken four years for the respondent -State authority to file counter affidavit and state their position. The some outcome of the various affidavits filed by the respondents is that the State has decided to reject the application of the petitioner without any cogent reason or basis.

(2.) PETITIONER is an Arms Dealer and holds different licence required under the Arms Act and Rules. As part and parcel of his desire to diverse if not expand his business, he applied for grant of licence under Form XII of Rule 24(1) of the Arms Rules. This was in the year, 1983. There was recommendation in favour of the petitioner by the local District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police which was duly forwarded to the Joint Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar in the year 1983. -84 itself. There was another bout of enquiry in the year, 1987 but nothing emerged from the same. On 24.1.1992 the District Magistrate, Gopalganj sent his recommendation, after due verification, for issuance of a licence to petitioner to the respondent -Home Department, Government of Bihar. It took ten years for Under Secretary to respond. On 15th June, 2002 the Under Secretary, Home (Police) opined that the matter had became too old therefore a fresh recommendation was required. It is an another issue that the matter was made old if not stale because of sheer inactivity on the part of the Department of Home, (Police). The District Magistrate, Gopalganj vide letter dated 23.7.2002 asked the Superintendent of Police to give his opinion and recommendation. The Superintendent of Police opined in favour of the petitioner for grant of licence under Form XII. The recommendation was forwarded by the District Magistrate to the Home (Police) Department. When nothing came out of the same the petitioner moved this High Court.

(3.) A fresh counter affidavit came to be filed on 30th January, 2008. This affidavit was sworn by the Joint Secretary Home (Police), Government of Bihar. In the new counter affidavit it was stated that a report was called for from the Superintendent of Police (C) CID, Patna and Superintendent of Police (Security) Special Branch on the issue for grant of licence to the petitioner. A detailed enquiry was caried out on sixteen parameters which is evident from the report dated 24.5.2007 annexed with Annexure -A. There is yet another report on the same date where a response with regard to four other parameters have been given. An order dated 16th October, 2007 contained in Annexure -B has been brought on record where a communication was issued to the District Magistrate, Gopalganj that the State Government has refused to sanction, licence under Form XII made by the petitioner.