MANORANJAN NATH SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's late father had a licence under the Arms Act for a DBBL Gun. Consequent to death of his father the petitioner deposited the said arms for safe custody and subsequently made an application for arms licence so as to retain the said arms. Petitioner is a practicing doctor and permanent resident of Patna, which is not in dispute. Being in Government service, by cadre bifurcation he is posted in Dhanbad. Though, he is continued to be permanent resident of Bihar at Patna. His application for licence was entertained and reports called for from various authorities. All reports were favourable yet the licence has not been revised by the Collector, Patna. The Collector, Patna rejected the application vide Memo No. 2717 dated 16.6.2004. The petitioner then challenged this order before this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 8419 of 2004, which was disposed of on 29.8.2007, with an observation and direction to the petitioner to file statutory remedy of appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna was directed to decide the matter on merit expeditiously within four months. Petitioner accordingly filed appeal being Arms Appeal No. 626 of 2007, which was ultimately dismissed by order dated 29.8.2009 after two years only on the ground of delay in filing the appeal without going into the merits of the matter at all.

(2.) It is regretted that an Officer of the rank of Divisional Commissioner is unable to appreciate the law in this regard and finds excuse to dismiss the appeal without application of mind. The order of the District Magistrate refusing licence to the petitioner is 16.6.2004. The petitioner had filed writ application in the year 2004 itself, which was disposed of in the year 2007. He then pursuant to orders of this Court filed an appeal immediately before the Divisional Commissioner. Thus, on the fact of it, it is clear that the petitioner had filed the writ application, which had been pending in the High Court over 3 years that itself, is a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. With due regard to the learned Commissioner, this is a reasonable ground, which was apparent from the records itself. For condoning the delay, the order of the Commissioner can, thus, not be sustained, it is set aside.

(3.) The petitioner submits that even otherwise a bare look to the order of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Patna would show that the Licensing Authority has denied licence to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is not on the hit list of any fundamentalist group or any terrorist organization or any anti-social elements. He has not been visited with any criminal incident, which only means that he has not been object of dacoity or kidnapping. Then, it is stated that as petitioner though permanent resident of Bihar is residing at present at Dhanbad. His character verification at Dhanbad has not been done. These are the grounds for rejecting the application for licence. The grounds aforesaid are in two groups. One with regard to his character verification and the other as noted above. So far as character verification is concerned, the obligation is on the Licensing Authority to get it done. If he has failed to get it done, thus, it did not entitle the petitioner because of fault and inability to verify the character of the person, the person cannot be made to suffer that is elementary principle of law. Failure of the authorities cannot visit citizens with adverse consequences that ground is non est. So far as the grounds of not being on hit list and not having been subjected to abduction, dacoity etc. are concerned, if these are the valid grounds then it is only those people who are either known to be on hit list or known to be abducted or subject to dacoity can get arms licence. No other citizen would then be entitled to arms licence. If such a stand is permitted then it would equally logically lead to cancellation of all arms licences of all persons who are not on hit list or who has not suffered dacoity, kidnapping etc. that surely is not the law. Thus, both the ground given by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Patna even otherwise is not sustainable. The order of the Collector, Patna, as contained in Memo No. 2717 dated 16.6.2004. cannot be the sustained in fact or in law, it is accordingly set aside. The Collector, Patna is directed to take a final decision in this matter within two months before filing a copy of this order before the Collector.