Khurshid Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.20822 of 2010 (4) dt.23-06-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20822 of 2010 ====================================================== Khurshid Ahmad,son of Fakhrul Hassan, resident of Mohalla-Mandai, Dargah Road, P.O.Mahendru, P.S. Sultanganj, Town and district Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna

3. The District Magistrate, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Partha Sarthy For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-06-2015 Heard Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing of an order dated 02.12.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for grant of NP Bore revolver/ pistol licence was rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order dated 24.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, by which an appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the ground of technicality, his application for grant of licence was rejected. He further submits that it is true that the petitioner

Patna High Court CWJC No.20822 of 2010 (4) dt.23-06-2015 is having licence of rifle, but he had applied for grant of licence of revolver, which was earlier incorrectly rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was allowed and remitted back the matter to the learned Collector for passing a reasoned order and, thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to persuade the Court that only on such technicality, the application was not required to be rejected.

I have perused the impugned order. From the order impugned i.e. the order of the District Magistrate, it is evident that one of the main ground for rejection of the application is that the petitioner has made false statement on oath. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the order of the Collector has already been affirmed by the appellate authority as well as the fact that the petitioner had not approached the authority with clean hand, I do not find any ground to interfere with either of the impugned orders. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U