Satyendra Narayan Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5656 of 2014 =========================================================== Satyendra Narayan Singh, Son of Late Ramashish Rai, Resident Of Village- Saleya, P.O.- Akodhigola, P.S.- Akodhigola, District- Rohtas (Sasaram), Bihar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through 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 .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shree Kant Prasad, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Adv.

For State : Mr. M.K. Upadhaya, Adv. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-12-2015 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 matter 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. 25 of 2011 and remitted 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.5656 of 2014 dt.08-12-2015 2/2 been able to produce any evidence regarding threat perception. The 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 already decided the same and 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 eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Prakash/- U T