← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/2453/2026disposed

Raj Kumari Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-02Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2410 of 2026 ====================================================== Avajit Kumar S/o Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar R/o Village- Bibipur, District- Aurangabad, P.O- Bhadwa, P.S. Rafiganj, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate-cum-District Arms Magistrate, Aurangabad. 3.

The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya Ji.

4.

The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad.

5.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad.

6.

The Station House Officer, Rafiganj Police Station, Aurangabad. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2453 of 2026 ====================================================== Raj Kumari Devi W/o Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Sanjay Singh R/o VillageBibipur, District- Aurangabad, P.O.- Bhadwa, P.S. Rafiganj, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate-cum-District Arms Magistrate, Aurangabad. 3.

The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya Ji.

4.

The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad.

5.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad.

6.

The Station House Officer, Rafiganj Police Station, Aurangabad. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2410 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Apurv Harsh For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Standing Counsel 7 (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2453 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Apurv Harsh For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Standing Counsel (6) ======================================================

2/4 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 02-07-2026 Re:- CWJC No. 2453 of 2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) That the petitioner prays for issuance of writ of mandamus and any other appropriate writs, orders, or directions to the Respondent No. 2 to grant arms license to the Petitioner and comply with his statutory duty to enforce the order dated 28.11.2025 grating him license of Shortgun (BL/ML) in Arms Appeal No.

163/2024 by the Respondent No. 3.

(ii) Direct the Respondents to compensate the Petitioner for the mental agony and harassment caused due to their unlawful actions; despite order granting arms license in favour of Petitioner:

(iii) Any other relief/reliefs that your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the license has already been granted in favor of this petitioner. So

3/4 the writ petition has become infructuous, which fact has not been controverted by the counsel for the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Re:- CWJC No. 2410 of 2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) That the petitioner prays for issuance of writ of mandamus and any other appropriate writs, orders, or directions to the Respondent No. 2 to grant arms license to the Petitioner and comply with his statutory duty to enforce the order dated 28.11.2025 grating him license of Rifle in Arms Appeal No. 162 /2024 by the Respondent No. 3.

(ii) Direct the Respondents to compensate the Petitioner for the mental agony and harassment caused due to their unlawful actions; despite order granting arms license in favour of Petitioner;

(iii) Any other relief reliefs that your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the

4/4 application for grant of license in respect of this petitioner has been rejected owing to criminal cases pending against him, which fact has been refuted by the counsel for the petitioner by submitting that in the said case, final form has already been submitted.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner proposes to file appropriate appeal as provided in law, by placing all such materials, which has been overlooked by licensing authority.

5. Considering the stand taken by the parties, this Court directs that once such appeal is preferred before the Appellate Authority, in such event, the same shall be adjudicated by the giving conscious consideration to all such materials, which would be placed by this petitioner and necessary order shall be passed with respect to the grievances of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Ajit Kumar, J) rajan/- U