Patna High Court
Shivendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar through the Home Secretary,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The interlocutory application is allowed and disposed of, and the petitioner may file a fresh representation for the addition of the rifle.
Summary
Petitioner Shivendra Kumar filed a writ seeking direction to the State of Bihar to consider his representation dated 09‑12‑2024 for adding an N.P. bore rifle to an existing pistol licence. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad, rejected the addition despite the matter being sub‑judice and contrary to the precedent in Aakash Gaurav v. State of Bihar, which mandates a decision within seven days. An interlocutory application was filed to amend the prayer and to quash the rejection order. The Court, after hearing counsel, held the application formal and not opposed, allowed it, and disposed of the interlocutory application. The writ was dismissed, but the petitioner was directed to file a fresh representation before the competent authority and may pursue remedies under the Arms Act if aggrieved.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the District Magistrate's order rejecting the addition of an N.P. bore rifle to an existing licence?
- Does the precedent in Aakash Gaurav v. State of Bihar obligate the authority to decide the representation within seven days?
- Can the interlocutory application to amend the prayer and quash the order be entertained?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Arms licence
- addition of rifle
- Writ jurisdiction
- Procedural time limit
- Quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1117 of 2025
======================================================
Shivendra Kumar Son of Late Mahavir Sharma Resident of Village -
Khudwan, P.S. - Khudwan, District- Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar.
2. Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
3. District Magistrate, Aurangabad.
4. Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad.
5. Additional District Magistrate, (Arms), Aurangabad.
6. District Arms Magistrate, Aurangabad.
7. Sub- Divisional Officer, Aurangabad.
8. S.H.O. Khudwan Police Station, District - Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Manisha Pandey
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raghwendra Kumar, Standing Counsel (22)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 25-06-2026 Re:- I.A. No.01 of 2025
This interlocutory application has been filed for
amending the prayer by amending the paragraph-1 of the writ
application and to seek quashing of the order dated 07.05.2025,
as contained in Memo No.1168/ Arms of Case No.63 of 2019,
passed by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, whereby the
application for addition of N.P. Bore Rifle in existing N.P. Bore
Rifle Pistol No.02/2015 has been arbitrarily rejected, despite the
matter being sub judice.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as
Patna High Court CWJC No.1117 of 2025(3) dt.25-06-2026
2/3
the present Interlocutory Application being formal in nature, is
not opposed, and hence is allowed.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2025 stands disposed of.
Re:- CWJC No.1117 of 2025
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
writ application was originally filed seeking a direction upon the
respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated
09.12.2024 submitted before the District Magistrate,
Aurangabad (respondent no. 3) for addition of a rifle licence in
the existing pistol licence, in the light of the judgment of this
Court in Aakash Gaurav vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in
BLJ 2019 (1) 697. It is submitted that in the said judgment, this
Court has observed that an application for addition of arms in an
existing licence ought to be considered within a period of seven
days from the date of filing of such application.
5. In view of the fact that an order has now been
passed by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, the petitioner has
a fresh cause of action to challenge the said order in an
appropriate proceeding.
6. Accordingly, the writ application stands disposed
of.
7. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file a
Patna High Court CWJC No.1117 of 2025(3) dt.25-06-2026
3/3
representation before the competent authority along with the
judgments on which he seeks to place reliance against the
rejection order. In the event the representation is not considered
or the petitioner remains aggrieved by the decision taken
thereon, he shall be at liberty to avail such remedy as may be
available under the provisions of the Arms Act or to take
recourse to any other remedy available in law.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.