Devanand Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3101 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8917 of 2019 ====================================================== Devanand Pandey, aged about 25 years, Male S/o Late Sushil Pandey R/o Village-Khoridharpur, P.O. Natwar, P.S. Vikramganj, District Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Mr. Pankaj Dixit, District Magistrate, Sasaram, Rohtas. 3.

Mr. Satyabir Singh Superintendent of Police, Sasaram, Rohtas. 4.

Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sasaram, Rohtas. 5.

Mr. Priya Ranjan, Officer-in-Chatge, Bikramganj Thana, Distt.-Rohtas. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vishal Saurabh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad (SC-8) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA ORAL ORDER 07-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. This contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of the order dated 23.04.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8917 of 2019 by which order, the District Magistrate, Rohtas was directed to take appropriate decision with regard to grant of arms licence in the name of the petitioner in accordance with the existing 2016 Rules at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of completion of the general election.

3. Opposite Party No. 2 - the District Magistrate, Sasaram, Rohtas, has filed a show cause, wherein, in paragraph no. 7, thereof, it has been stated as under:

Patna High Court MJC No.3101 of 2019(3) dt.07-04-2025 2/2 "7. That here it is relevant to point out that the report received and application of the petitioner were examined and scrutinized in light of the guidelines as laid down in C.W.J.C. No. 18535 of 2011 (Manish Kumar Versus The State of Bihar) L.P.A. No. 758 of 2018 and the provisions as provided in Arms Rule, 2016 and it was found that the petitioner did not fulfil the required criteria as provided Under Rule 12(3)(a), 12(3)(b) and 12(3)(c) of the Arms Rule 2016 and the petitioner also did not produce the training certificate as envisaged under Rule 10(1) of the Rule 2016 and it is accordingly thereof the application of the petitioner seeking Arms License was rejected by the order dated 07.11.2019 passed in Arms Case No. 11/2019."

4. On perusal of paragraph 7 of show cause filed by the O.P. No.2, I find that the order dated 23.04.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8917 of 2019 has been complied with.

5. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed and disposed off.

(Nani Tagia, J) Nilmani/- U