Patna High Court
Mr. Saurav Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The High Court set aside the orders of the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner, directing the District Magistrate to adjudicate the licence application in accordance with the Arms Act.
Summary
Petitioner Saurav Kumar Singh applied for an arms licence which was rejected by the District Magistrate, Patna, and the rejection was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner. The petitioner contended that the authorities ignored his threat perception, his occupation as a goldsmith, and a recent robbery attempt documented in a police report, thereby violating the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959. The High Court examined the statutory duties under Sections 13(3)(b) and 14 of the Arms Act, noting that refusal of a licence is permissible only when public peace or safety is compromised and that reasons for refusal must be recorded. The Court found the impugned orders to be oblivious to these statutory requirements and set aside both the District Magistrate’s and the Commissioner’s orders. It directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the licence application, adhering to any new procedural format, and to decide within six weeks, thereby allowing the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner correctly exercised their discretion under Sections 13(3)(b) and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 in refusing the arms licence.
- Whether the authorities were required to consider the petitioner’s threat perception, nature of business, and police report before refusing the licence.
- Whether the refusal orders complied with the statutory requirement to record reasons for denial under Section 14(3) of the Arms Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 10, 12, 13(3)(b), 14, 14(1)(b)(2), 3, 4, 5, 6
Subjects
- arms licence
- Arms Act
- Section 14
- certiorari
- mandamus
- threat perception
- licensing authority
- public safety
- goldsmith
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1091 of 2025
======================================================
Mr. Saurav Kumar Singh S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Resident of village-
Dariyapur, P.O. Fathuha, P.S. Fathuha, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
4. Additional District Magistrate, Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
5. The District Arms Magistrate, Income Tax Golamber, Baily Road, Patna.
6. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
7. The Officer-In-Charge, Fathuha Police Station, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anurag Saurav,
Mr. Abhishek Kumar,
Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suman Kr. Jha, AC to AAG(03)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
AC to AAG-3.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
i) For Issuance of Writ in
the nature of Certiorari Quashing of
Order dated 19.11.2024 passed in
Arms Appeal No. 241 of 2024 whereby
and where under Divisional
Commissioner, Patna has upheld the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1091 of 2025(6) dt.06-04-2026
2/10
order dated 07.12.2023 passed by
District Magistrate, Patna in Misc.
Arms Case No. IX-157/2022 whereby
and where under the application filed
by petitioner for providing Arms
license has been rejected.
ii) For issuance of writ in
the nature of certiorari for quashing
the order bearing Memo no. 4097
dated 07.12.2023 in Misc. Arms Case
No. IX-157/2022 passed by District
Magistrate, Patna whereby and where
under District Magistrate, Patna has
rejected the application for issuance
of Arms License filed by the petitioner
without considering the threat
perception of the petitioner.
iii) For issuance of writ in
the nature of mandamus for directing
the respondent authorities to consider
the threat perceptions and nature of
business of the petitioner and provide
Patna High Court CWJC No.1091 of 2025(6) dt.06-04-2026
3/10
Arms License.
iv) For issuance of any
other appropriate writ (S), order(s)
and direction(s) as your Lordship may
deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case..”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the
reasons for rejection which has been incorporated in the order
impugned dated 07.12.2023 in Misc. Arms Case No. IX-
157/2022 passed by District Magistrate, Patna, goes to show
that the authorities/District Magistrate, Patna while referring to
the provisions under Arms Act, 1959, Section 13(3) (b) and
Section 14 (1) (b) (2), wherein the Licensing Authorities have
been empowered to refuse to grant a license on satisfaction,
where it transpires to the authorities that for security of the
public peace or for public safety, the same can be refused. It has
next been submitted that the petitioner’s application for
obtaining license has been rejected by the authorities on the
ground that the recommendation sent by the Senior
Superintendent Of Police, Patna vide letter no. 121 dated
18.01.2023., does not reflect the reason for providing Arms
License to the petitioner, which finding is contrary to the report
Patna High Court CWJC No.1091 of 2025(6) dt.06-04-2026
4/10
sent by the SHO, Fatuha which is contained in Letter No. 646
dated 21.03.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to
the provisions of Section 13(3) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959
submits that the Licensing authority is provided with statutory
duty to grant license under Section 3 in any other case or a
license under Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 10 or
Section 12, if the licensing authority is satisfied that the person
by whom the license is required has a good reason for obtaining
the same. Though, the provisions of Section13(3) (b) which
enables the licensing authority to consider the case of the
applicant for grant of license in the contingencies indicated
under the said provision, still, for no prudent reason, has refused
to exercise the powers to grant license ignoring the materials
available on record, wherein the petitioner was attacked by 10-
14 unknown persons with a solitary purpose to commit robbery,
for which there is already Fatuha PS Case No. 539 of 2024 was
registered by the brother of the petitioner under Section 310(2)
of the BNS and section 27 of the Arms Act, and much less the
requirement of such license owing to this petitioner being a
Goldsmith and dealing in gold besides being a contractor has
not been controverted by the local police and his character
Patna High Court CWJC No.1091 of 2025(6) dt.06-04-2026
5/10
having been examined through the Chaukidar and as also local
person having not been found to be negative and there being
nothing contrary in the police record, the local having
recommended for such grant of license not being appreciated by
the licensing authority deserves to be interfered with in order to
enable the petitioner who seeks such license for his personal
safety. The issues of grant of Arms License to the persons
dealing in gold has been approved by the Hon’ble Division
Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 758 of 2018 wherein the
following proposition has been carved out:-
“"The order of the District
Magistrate, as communicated, does not
indicate the existence of any valid reason,
but, at the same time, the order in appeal
passed by the Commissioner indicates that
there was no mention of any specific security
threat or danger to the appellant in the
police report. Such a ground, in our opinion,
would be contrary to the intent of grant of
license inasmuch as it is not necessary that a
person should have an actual threat or
imminent threat perception, but it would
Patna High Court CWJC No.1091 of 2025(6) dt.06-04-2026
6/10
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 has now been taken care of under
Sub-Rule (3)(a) of Rule 12 of the 2016 Rules.
In this view of the matter, the question of
grant or refusal of license will have to be
revisited by the licensing authority where the
licensing authority will have the power to
make an assessment as per the aforesaid
Rules, keeping in view the police report or
such other factors which may be necessary
for the said purpose."
5. On the other hand, learned AC to AAG-3 endorsed
the decision taken by the District Magistrate, Patna submitting
that it is the subjective satisfaction of the licensing authorities in
granting license or in refusing the same on his/her/their personal
satisfaction, where the security of public peace and for public
safety, such decisions are required to be taken by them.
6. Considering the submission of the parties, this
Court finds that since there is already a report of local police
Patna High Court CWJC No.1091 of 2025(6) dt.06-04-2026
7/10
wherein the petitioner’s nature of business has already been
disclosed and as also an attempt of robbery, which has already
been made on this petitioner, such aspect having not been dealt
with, by the licensing authorities in their orders, and even from
the appellate order, it does not appear that the appellate
authorities have considered such issues with regard to the
petitioner’s entitlement for grant of license and for better
appreciation, at this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the
provision of Section 14 of the Arms Act which reads as under:
14. Refusal of licences.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything in
section 13, licensing authority shall refuse to
grant-
(a) a licence 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 whom the licensing authority
has reason to believe-
Patna High Court CWJC No.1091 of 2025(6) dt.06-04-2026
8/10
(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.
(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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1091 of 2025(6) dt.06-04-2026
9/10
furnish such statement.
7. From perusal of the above facts and
circumstances, submissions of the parties and as also in light of
section 14 of the Arms Act, it is evident that the District
Magistrate, while rejecting the application of the petitioner as
well as by the appellate authority, while dealing with the appeal
of the petitioner has passed the orders being oblivious to the
provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act, which pertains to the
refusal of the license only in the case of, where the security of
Public Peace and Public Safter is found to be compromised. It is
not the case of the State authorities that the petitioner has been
found not worthy of the license on the grounds mentioned under
Section 14 of the Arms Act. The grounds, as mentioned in the
impugned orders, do not in any manner indicate that the
petitioner is not entitled for the arms license and as such, he has
been treated to be unfit for the license under the Arms Act.
8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court sets aside both
the orders i.e., order dated 19.11.2024 passed in Arms Appeal
No. 241/2024 by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna as well as
the order dated 07.12.2023 passed in Misc. Arms Case No. IX-
157/2022 by the District Magistrate, Patna
9. Consequently, the District Magistrate, Patna, is
Patna High Court CWJC No.1091 of 2025(6) dt.06-04-2026
10/10
directed to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner for grant of
license on the basis of earlier application filed by this petitioner
vide Annexure-5, and in case, any new format of application
having been introduced for making/seeking request for grant of
license by the applicant, in such event, the petitioner would be
appropriately communicated to carry out the formalities for
filling up such application and, in case, there is no such change,
in such event, the petitioner’s application for grant of license
shall be adjudicated within a period of six weeks from filing of a
representation by the petitioner before the authorities concerned.
10. It goes without saying that all these issues which
has been raised by this petitioner and the report which has been
submitted by the local police placed for consideration before the
District Magistrate through Superintendent of Police needs to be
considered strictly in consonance with the purport of the
legislation and on being satisfied, the District Magistrate is
required to act in accordance with law.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez
U
Checking your session…