Krishna Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22510 of 2014 =================================================== Krishna Kumar Son of Late Jagarnath Prasda, Resident of Sahu Talkies (G.T.) (Grand Trunk) Road, P.S.- Sasaram, District - Rohtas .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner, Patna

2. Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna

3. District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram

4. Superintendent of Police, Rohtas at Sasaram

5. Officer - in - Charge, Sasaram, Police Station- Rohtas .... .... Respondents =================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Mandal, S.C.-24 Mr. Bipin Kr., Advocate, AC to SC-24 =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 16-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of Annexure-4 which is an order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the District Magistrate-cumLicensing Authority, Rohtas at Sasaram. He also assails the appellate order dated 17.06.2014 as contained in Annexure-5 by which his appeal has been dismissed and the order passed by the Licensing Authority has been upheld.

Ground for rejection, as it appears from the impugned order, is lack of specific evidence regarding threat perception.

Patna High Court CWJC No.22510 of 2014 dt.16-05-2016 2 / 2 However, this issue is no longer res integra as this Court in Manish Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar and other analogous cases [AIR 2016 Patna 9] has already held that lack of production of specific evidence regarding threat perception does not form a ground for refusal of licence under Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. The letter/circular of the Home Ministry, Government of India dated 21.03.2010 has also been considered in the aforesaid decision holding that the direction is only to the extent that a person who is having threat perception may also be considered for grant of licence but it does not mean that it will oust others.

Accordingly, this writ application succeeds. The impugned orders, as contained in Annexure 4 and 5, are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate-cumLicensing Authority, Rohtas at Sasaram for taking a fresh decision in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that while doing so, he would be obliged to consider the ratio decided in Manish Kumar (Supra).

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) ravi/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date Transmission Date NA