Madhukar Kumar @Dr. Madhukar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1609 of 2014 ====================================================== Madhukar Kumar @ Dr. Madhukar Kumar Son Of Ram Naresh Singh Resident Of Village - Dinkar Nagar, Police Station - Barbigha in The District Of Sheikhpura .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through it Home Commissioner, Patna

2. The District Magistrate, Sheikhpura

3. The Arms Magistrate, Sheikhpura

4. The Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura

5. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna

6. The S.H.O.Gandi Maidan Police Station, Patna

7. The S.H.O. Barbigha Police Station, Sheikhpura .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Ambastha, GP 14 and Balram Kapri, AC to GP 14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 01-12-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The licence of the petitioner which was granted for N.P.Bore revolver and riffle separately was suspended vide Annexure 2 dated 27.2.2013. Petitioner was directed to show cause and as to explain as to why both of his licences should not be cancelled in public interest.

Petitioner claims that he has submitted explanation. However, it is contended that no final decision has been taken by the licensing authority till date and his licences have remained under suspension for about two years. Learned counsel submits

Patna High Court CWJC No.1609 of 2014 (2) dt.01-12-2015 2/2 that petitioner is a contractor and there is threat upon his life. Be that as it may, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ application is being disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate - cum - licensing authority, Sheikhpura to take a final decision in the matter of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. While doing so he would be required to consider the materials available on record including the subsequent recommendation by the police appended as Annexure 6 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Spd/- U