Patna High CourtCWJC/13478/2014disposed

Vikramaditya Kumar @ Vikramaditya Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-02-01Mr. Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13478 of 2014 ====================================================== Vikramaditya Kumar @ Vikramaditya Singh Son of Sadhu Sharan Singh Resident of Village + Post Ekbalganj Nisarpura, P.S. Rani Talab, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The District Magistrate, District - Patna

4. The Senior Superintendent of Office, Patna

5. The Superintendent of Police ( Rural ), Patna

6. The Arms Magistrate, Patna

7. The Sub - Divisional Police Officer, Sub - Division - Paliganj, District - Patna

8. The Police Inspector, Vikram Anchal, District - Patna

9. The Officer - in - charge, Rani Talab, P.S. District - Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajkumar Rajesh, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Ambastha, G.P. 14, Mr. Balram Kapri, A.C. to G.P.14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 01-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.07.2013 ( Annexure 2) passed by the District Magistrate-cumLicensing Authority, Patna by which his application for grant of licence has again been rejected on the ground that there is no threat perception upon him.

This issue is no longer res integra as this Court has

Patna High Court CWJC No.13478 of 2014 (2) dt.01-02-2016 2 / 2 already held in Manish Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar and other analogous cases [AIR 2016 Patna 9] that non-availability of specific evidence regarding threat perception upon the applicant does not form a ground for refusal of licence as mere apprehension of the same is enough.

Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the licensing authority for taking a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Sanjay-II/- U