Patna High CourtCWJC/5757/2014allowed

Ranjeet Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-01-18Mr. Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5757 of 2014 ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Kapil Deo Rai, Resident of VillageSaleya, P.O.- Akodhigola, P.S.- Akodhigola, District- Rohtas (Sasaram), Bihar .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna

2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna

3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas (Sasaram), Bihar

4. The District Arms Magistrate, Rohtas (Sasaram), Bihar

5. The Superintendent Of Police, Rohtas (Sasaram), Bihar

6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dihri, Rohtas (Sasaram), Bihar

7. The Officer In Charge, Akodhigola Police Station, Akodhigola, Dihri, Rohtas (Sasaram), Bihar .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dinbandhu Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 18-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner's application for grant of arms license was rejected by the District Magistrate-cum-licensing Authority, Rohtas, Sasaram vide annexure 2 dated 20.05.2010. The order was assailed in appeal. The appellate authority vide annexure 3 has disposed off several appeals including one filed by the petitioner bearing Arms Appeal no. 26 of 2011 by remitting back the matter to the licensing authority for fresh consideration. Again Annexure 4 was passed by the licensing authority on the same ground that the petitioner has not been able to produce any evidence regarding

Patna High Court CWJC No.5757 of 2014 (3) dt.18-01-2016 2/2 threat perception.

This issue is no longer res integra as this Court in Manish Kumar vs. State of Bihar and other analogous cases rendered in 2015 (4) PLJR 212 has held that it does not form a ground for refusal of license.

Accordingly this application succeeds in terms thereof and the matter is remitted back to the licensing authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) V.K. Pandey/- U