Patna High Court
Sanjay Kumar Yadavendu vs The State Of Bihar on 25 February, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.30 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1933 of 2022
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar Yadavendu S/o Sidheshwar Prasad, Village-Mahamanna, P.S.-
Tekari, District-Gaya.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya.
5. The District Arms Magistrate, Gaya.
6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Tekari, Gaya.
7. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Tekari, Gaya.
8. The Officer in Charge, Tekari, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amarnath Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG -3
Mr. S.K. Ghosarvey, SC to AAG -3.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 25-02-2025
1. Heard Mr. Amarnath Singh, the learned Advocate for
the appellant and Mr. P.K. Verma, the learned Additional
Advocate General for the State.
2. The appellant, an agriculturist and a contractor had
applied for grant of license for permissible arms which was
rejected by the District Magistrate, Gaya and his appeal too
Patna High Court L.P.A No.30 of 2024 dt.25-02-2025
was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh
Division, Gaya.
3. The learned Single Judge also agreed with the line of
thinking of the two authorities that no threat perception
could be gathered by the police regarding the life and
property of the appellant.
4. We are afraid whether that could be the sole reason for
avoiding to grant license of permissible arms to a person.
5. The relevant provision in the Arms Act, 1959 are
Sections 13 and 14. Section 14, in particular, lists the
grounds on which grant of license could be refused to an
applicant. For the sake of completeness and ready
reference, we deem it appropriate to extract the provisions
contained in Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959:-
Refusal of licences.―(1)
Notwithstanding anything in section 13, the
licensing authority shall refuse to grant―
(a) a license under section 3, section 4
or section 5 where such licence is required in
respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited
ammunition; (b) a licence in any other case under
Chapter II,―
(i) where such licence is required by a person
Patna High Court L.P.A No.30 of 2024 dt.25-02-2025
whom the licensing authority has reason to
believe--
(1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other
law for the time being in force from acquiring,
having in his possession or carrying any arms or
ammunition; or
(2) to be of unsound mind; or
(3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence
under this Act; or
(ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary
for the security of the public peace or for public
safety to refuse to grant such licence.
(2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant
any licence to any person merely on the ground that
such person does not own or possess sufficient
property.
(emphasis supplied)
(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a
licence to any person it shall record in writing the
reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person
on demand a brief statement of the same unless in
any case the licensing authority is of the opinion
that it will not be in the public interest to furnish
such statement.
6. Sub-section 2 of Section 14 clearly states that the
Licensing Authority shall not refuse to grant license to any
person merely on the ground that such person does not
own or possess sufficient property. The relevant clause of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.30 of 2024 dt.25-02-2025
Arm Rules, 2016 is Rule -12 (3) which provides that
For grant of a licence for the permissible arms
or ammunition specified in category III in
Schedule I, and without prejudice to the
provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-
section (3) of section 13, the licensing
authority, based on the police report and on
his own assessment, may consider the
applications of ─
(a) any person who by the very nature of his
business, profession, job or otherwise has
genuine requirement to protect his life and/or
property; or
(emphasis supplied)
(b).........................
(c)..........................
7. From a conjoint reading of the aforenoted provisions, it
becomes clear that threat perception is not a necessary
factor to be taken into account for granting or refusing to
grant a license. Though it is not couched in such specific
terms in the Act, but Sub-section 2 of Section 14 makes
the intendment of the Act absolutely clear, viz., that a
license cannot be refused on the ground that the person
does not own or possess sufficient property. This can be
read also to mean that the assessment of threat perception
Patna High Court L.P.A No.30 of 2024 dt.25-02-2025
or lack of it, cannot be the ground for rejecting the
application for grant of license. Such omnibus ground
cannot be pressed into use for defeating the very purpose
of providing reasons where a license could be refused or
granted.
8. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Bihar and
Others vs. Deepak Kumar; 2019 (1) PLJR 664 has
held that license cannot be refused merely on the ground of
the police authorities not having found any specific security
threat or danger to the applicant. Such a ground in the
opinion of the Bench, was contrary to the intent of grant of
license in as much as it is not necessary that a person
should have an actual threat or imminent threat perception
but it would suffice if the applicant is able to persuade the
authority to take into consideration the nature of his trade,
profession and calling for the purpose of grant of license,
which situation is taken care of under Rule -12(3A) of the
2016 rules.
9. The only reason, as it appears from the orders passed
by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner in appeal
Patna High Court L.P.A No.30 of 2024 dt.25-02-2025
for refusing to grant license, is the lack of threat
perception. This was taken as an irrefutable reason for the
authorities to deny license to the appellant.
10. The right to life involves with it the right to protect life.
When the Act makes it very clear that sufficiency of
property may not be a ground to refuse license, it could
always be read as the lack of threat perception also cannot
be the sole ground for refusing license. In fact, the
authority granting license has to come to a definite
conclusion on his assessment of the fact situation especially
the facts portrayed by the applicant in his application.
11. The very nature of the business of the appellant,
namely, his being a contractor and an agriculturist holding
large tracts of land, should have been sufficient for the
authorities to assess whether he qualified for being or not
granted license.
12. Thus, finding that a very narrow approach has been
adopted by the District Magistrate, Gaya and the
Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya and which orders
were approved of by the learned Single Judge, we are of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.30 of 2024 dt.25-02-2025
the view that all the orders need to be set aside.
13. We order accordingly.
14. The matter is remanded to the District Magistrate, Gaya
to decide afresh whether in his assessment, the appellant
requires to be granted license of permissible arms.
15. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three
months from the date of production of a copy of this order
before the District Magistrate of the concerned district.
16. The appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
17. Interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed
off.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
( Partha Sarthy, J)
sunilkumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.03.2025
Transmission Date NA
