Ranjani Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10760 of 2017 ====================================================== Ranjani Ranjan S/o Sri Birendra Prasad Singh, R/o Village- Manirampur, P.O.- Karhansi, P.S. Natwar, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The District Magistrate, Rohtas.

3.

The Superintendent of Police, Sasaram, Rohtas. 4.

Sub-Divisional Officer, Bikramganj, Rohtas.

5.

Officer-in-charge, Natwar Thana, Natwar, Rohtas. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vishal Saurabh, Adv For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Prabhat Kumar Verma, AAG-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 21-11-2019 Though the present writ petition was filed for quashing the order dated 06.05.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Arms Case No.05 of 2017, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner be granted liberty to file a fresh application for grant of arms licence and the same may be decided by the District Magistratecum-District Arms Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram considering the effect of Rule 18 of the Arms Rules, 2016.

2. Having regard to the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem fit and proper to dispose of the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file

Patna High Court CWJC No.10760 of 2017 dt.21-11-2019 2/2 fresh application for grant of additional arms licence in accordance with the Arms Rules, 2016 and it is further directed that the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram while considering the said application of the petitioner would not be prejudiced by the order dated 06.05.2017 passed by him in Arms Case No.05 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence, was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was already having one arms licence, however, the fact of the matter was that the petitioner had applied for grant of arms licence in the year 2012 and the said arms licence was granted in the year 2015, hence, the petitioner could not have foreseen that he would be granted an arms licence in future, thus the application, to be so filed by the petitioner for grant of additional arms licence, shall be considered on its own merits.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Nitesh/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 27.11.2019 Transmission Date NA