HARBANSH MISRA Vs. COMMISSIONER PATNA DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for consideration in this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is the validity of the orders passed by the respondents on the application of the petitioner for the grant of licence for a firearm, namely, a gun.

(2.) The petitioner who is a cultivator is a resident of village Pongadhi, in the district of Rohtas. His case is that he is a substantial and respectable cultivator in the locality and his house is situated on the outskirts of the village and attempts of commit dacoity in his house were made in the past by criminals two or three times. He has further said that although there are two licensed guns in his village, the licensees of those guns were inlmically dispossed towords him, and therefore, he does not expect to get any help in case of any need from them.

(3.) The petitioner applied for the grant of a licence for a D.B.B.L. gun in the prescribed from (Annexure 1) to the licensing authority stating therein that he required the said firearm "for the safety of life and property". According to the practice, the application of the petitioner was forwarded to the local police for inquiry and report. According to the report dated 30-4-1972 of the police ''there is nothing against him in the police record. No objection if a licence is issued to him for Sasaram sub-division". The application of the petitioner was however rejected by the licensing authority, namely the Arms Magistrate, Sasaram (respondent No. 3). An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the District Magistrate of Rohtas, Sasaram (respondent No. 2), who by his order dated 3-9-1974 (Annexure 3) dismissed the same. Respondent No. 2 rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that there was already two gun licensees in his village and there was no need for another licence. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna (respondent No. 1) and respondent No. 1 by his order dated 22-11-1974 (Annexure 4) dismissed the revisional application in limine, also observing thereunder that the petitioner was not able to make out a case before him. The petitioner has accordingly, filed the present application.