Patna High Court
Ashok Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The impugned order dated 28‑Oct‑2021 rejecting the petitioner’s arms licence application is arbitrary, illegal and is set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Singh, applied in 2006 for an arms licence (cases 516/2006 and 517/2006). The District Magistrate, Buxar, rejected the application on 28‑Oct‑2021 on the ground that a training certificate under Rule 10 of the Arms Rules, 2016 was required, a requirement that was introduced retrospectively. The petitioner contended that the retrospective application violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and that the licensing authority had failed to give notice, disclose material and afford a hearing, contrary to natural justice. The Court examined earlier orders (2008 rejection, 2015 remand, 2018 rejection) and a clarification from the Ministry of Home Affairs allowing state authorities to arrange training in the absence of central guidelines. Finding the magistrate’s reasons untenable and the order arbitrary, the Court set aside the 2021 order, directed the magistrate to appear, arrange training, consider the application afresh, and imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on the magistrate. The writ petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the retrospective application of Rule 10 of the Arms Rules, 2016 to pending licence applications violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the denial of notice, non‑disclosure of adverse material and rejection without a hearing amounts to a violation of natural justice.
- Whether a training certificate can be made a prerequisite for licences applied for before the rule came into force.
- Whether the District Magistrate’s order dated 28‑Oct‑2021 is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959
- Arms Rules, 2016 — s. Rule 10
- Constitution of India — s. Article 14, Article 21
Subjects
- arms licence
- Arms Act 1959
- Arms Rules 2016
- natural justice
- retrospective rule
- Article 14
- Article 21
- writ petition
- quashing order
- mandamus
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15403 of 2025
======================================================
Ashok Kumar Singh Son of Arjun Singh, Resident of Village, P.O. and P.S.-
Brahampur, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home, Government of
Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home (Police), Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Buxar.
5. The District Arms Magistrate, Buxar.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Buxar.
7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumraon, Buxar.
8. The Officer-in-Charge, Brahampur, Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajat Kumar Tiwary
Mrs. Deepika Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vivek Prasad, Government Pleader (7)
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GP-7
Ms. Roona, AC to GP-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 28-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):-
“i. For issuance of appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions
in the nature of quashing the impugned
order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the
District Magistrate, Buxar, in Case Nos.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15403 of 2025(3) dt.28-04-2026
2/16
516/2006 and 517/2006, whereby and
whereunder the application of the Petitioner
for grant of arms license has been
arbitrarily and illegally rejected, in complete
violation of the directions of this Hon'ble
Court, the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959,
and the fundamental principles of natural
justice; (Annexure-P/11; Pg. 57 & 58)
ii. For issuance of appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions
in the nature of mandamus, commanding the
Respondents, particularly the District
Magistrate, Buxar, to forthwith grant the
arms license sought by the Petitioner
pursuant to his application dated
09.02.2006, in view of the categorical
recommendations made by all the competent
authorities in view of the long and
unexplained delay, repeated illegalities, and
harassment caused to the Petitioner over the
last two decades.
iii. To declare that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.15403 of 2025(3) dt.28-04-2026
3/16
retrospective application of Rule 10 of the
Arms Rules, 2016 to the Petitioner's pending
application of 09.02.2006 is arbitrary,
unsustainable in law, and violative of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India.
iv. To hold and declare that the
action of the Respondents in not issuing
notice of hearing, in not disclosing adverse
material (if any), in passing orders behind
the back of the Petitioner, and in withholding
communication of orders for years together
is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, and in
violation of the Petitioner's constitutional
rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
V. For any other relief/reliefs to
which the Petitioner may be found entitled to
by this Hon'ble Court.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this
is the second round of litigation and initially against order dated
16.10.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Buxar whereby
Patna High Court CWJC No.15403 of 2025(3) dt.28-04-2026
4/16
the application of the petitioner for grant of license for a
revolver/pistol and an N.P. Bore Rifle was rejected against
which the petitioner is said to have moved before this Court
vide CWJC No.11196 of 2013 whereby the matter was remitted
by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 21.09.2015 directing
the licensing authority to take a fresh decision in accordance
with law. Thereafter, the petitioner filed several representation
before the District Magistrate, Buxar for compliance of the
order passed by this Court in the aforementioned case, but the
authorities sat over the applications of the petitioner forcing the
petitioner to file contempt petition being MJC No. 2943 of 2019
which was disposed of finally on 26.09.2024, where the
opposite parties apprised the Hon’ble Court regarding the
rejection order made in the year 2021 itself.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the two
applications being Case No. 516/2006 and 517/2006 originally
filed, which are said to have been rejected vide order dated
28.10.2021, whereby the petitioner has been asked to provide
training certificate and according to the petitioner the
requirement of training certificate to obtain license by licensing
authorities cannot be made retrospectively, over such
applications, which have been filed prior to the Notification in
Patna High Court CWJC No.15403 of 2025(3) dt.28-04-2026
5/16
question issued by the authorities, making it a pre-requisite for
grant of license.
5. In order to buttress his submissions, the petitioner
relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in
CWJC No. 22187 of 2019, whereby the following observations
have been made in para 5, 10, 11, 14 and 15 onwards:-
“5. Fact remains that the petitioner’s
application for grant of license again has been
rejected by an order dated 31.08.2018, this time on
the ground that the petitioner failed to produce
training certificate as specified in Rule 10 (1) of
the Arms Rules, 2016 and also because he failed to
appear before the licensing authority. The said
order dated 31.08.2018 is under challenge in the
present writ application.
....
10. A counter affidavit has been filed
accordingly on behalf of the District Magistrate,
Rohtas, wherein it has been vaguely stated that
some licences have been allowed by the then
District Magistrate, Rohtas, after 15.07.2016 till
03.05.2018 whereafter the present incumbent has
Patna High Court CWJC No.15403 of 2025(3) dt.28-04-2026
6/16
taken over the post of District Magistrate, Rohtas.
It is the case of the District Magistrate, Rohtas that
since, 03.05.2018 no Arms licence has been
granted in the district of Rohtas. If the said
statement is to be accepted, the provisions under
the Arms Act, 1959, which deal with grant of Arms
licence has been rendered meaningless as no arms
licence could be granted in absence of certificate
in form S-1 because of the said sub-rule (1) of Rule
10. After coming into force of the said Rules,
according to the District Magistrate, no licence
can be granted even in favor of those, who had
submitted their applications much before coming
into force of the Rules. It is noteworthy, as has
already been mentioned above, that under the
orders of the Court dated 28.09.2015, the District
Magistrate was expected to take a decision on the
petitioner’s application for grant of licence within
two months. The said order of this Court has
admittedly been flouted by the District Magistrate
and there is no explanation on record to justify the
defiance of the said Courts’ order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15403 of 2025(3) dt.28-04-2026
7/16
11. Understandably, the difficulties were
arising because of incorporation of the provision of
requirement of a certificate for an applicant to
apply for Arms licence in the State of Bihar in the
absence of any notification issued by the Central
Government as stipulated under sub-rule (3) of
Rule 10 of the Rules. Accordingly, a clarification
was sought by the Home Department (Police)
Government of Bihar from the Ministry of Home,
Government of India through letter dated
20.06.2017, a copy of which has been brought on
record by way of part of Annexure 11th series. In
response to the clarification sought, the Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India wrote a letter
to the Under Secretary Home, Government of
Bihar dated 07.07.2017 to the following effect:-
“ To
Shri Girish Mohan Thakur
Under Secretary (Home)
Government of Bihar
Secretariat, Patna
Subject:-Clarification sought by the
State Government of Bihar regarding Rules 10 &
39 of the Arms Rules, 2016.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15403 of 2025(3) dt.28-04-2026
8/16
Sir,
I am directed to refer to Government of
Bihar letter No.7/Anu-10-12/2017/5053 dated 20th
June, 2017 on the above subject.
2. With regard to the clarification sought
by the State Government of Bihar, the following are
clarified:
Clarification on Rule 10 and Rule 39 of
the Arms Rules, 2016
The Central Government in the Ministry
of Home Affairs has to issue detailed guidelines by
passing a general or special order in consultation
with Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs for
deciding the norms, syllabus and other
functionalities for Accredited Trainers and Master
Accredited Trainers under rule 39 of the Arms
Rules, 2016. Till such guidelines are circulated, the
licensing authorities may be allowed to get the
weapon handling training from the armours
working with state police departments, CAPFs and
defence forces and the certificate S-1 in the
prescribed Proforma as mentioned in the Arms
Rules, 2016 may be issued by a
committee/mechanism established by the State
Patna High Court CWJC No.15403 of 2025(3) dt.28-04-2026
9/16
Government for such purpose. Further, the State
Government may not put up any additional
requirements of furnishing of documents or
eligibility norms to what has been specified in the
Arms Rules, 2016.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
(Rajesh Ranjan)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India”
(Underlining for emphasis)
....
14. The District Magistrate in his
counter affidavit has not referred to the
clarification issued by the Government of India.
There is no clue from his affidavit as to whether he
has any knowledge about the clarification issued
by the Government of India or not. The
clarification issued by the Government of India
mentions that “licensing authorities may be
allowed to get the weapon handling training from
armours...”. It is manifest from the said
clarification that the Licensing Authorities are
required to be given permission to get the weapon
handling training from the armours with the State
Patna High Court CWJC No.15403 of 2025(3) dt.28-04-2026
10/16
Police Departments, CAPFs etc.
15. On analysis of uncontroverted facts
noted above it is manifest beyond doubt that the
petitioner’s application has been rejected for non-
compliance of something, which was impossible for
him to comply with. He could not have submitted
certificate in form S-1. When he had submitted his
application for grant of licence there was no such
requirement. The District Magistrate has no where
stated that he had arranged for the training as
clarified by the Government of India, which could
have led to the grant of a certificate in form S-1.
He has stated in the counter affidavit that the
petitioner was asked through notice dated
26.08.2018 to appear before him on 31.07.2018
with the documents. Subsequently on 27.08.2018,
the petitioner was directed to produce the required
training certificate as provided in Rule 10 (1) of
the Arms Rules, 2016. As has already been
indicated, it was impossible for the petitioner to
have produced a certificate under S-1 on
31.08.2018 after having received the notice dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.15403 of 2025(3) dt.28-04-2026
11/16
27.08.2018, in view of the above mentioned
discussion. The stand of the District Magistrate
that the petitioner did not appear on 31.08.2018, in
Court’s opinion, lacks bona fide. It is evident from
the uncontroverted facts that the petitioner is
pursuing his matter right from 2002 for grant of
arms licence. In most likelihood, the petitioner
could not have missed his chance to appear on the
date fixed before the District Magistrate for his
appearance for grant of arms licence, without any
reason. In any event, on the ground of absence for
a day, the petitioner’s application for grant of
arms licence ought not to have been rejected.
16. In my view, none of the reasons
assigned by the District Magistrate in his order
rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of
arms licence is legally sustainable. The impugned
order, therefore, in my view wholly arbitrary and
unreasonable and is, accordingly, set aside.
17. This application is accordingly
allowed with the following directions, in the facts
and circumstances noted above:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.15403 of 2025(3) dt.28-04-2026
12/16
(I) The petitioner shall appear before
the District Magistrate, Rohtas along with a copy
of this order on 03.02.2020 in his office at 10.30
A.M. The District Magistrate shall ensure that he is
available in his office at 10.30 A.M. The District
Magistrate will be duty bound to inform the
petitioner the training which he is required to
undergo and the place where such training is being
imparted for issuance of a certificate in Form S-1.
(II) In the event, no arrangement has
been made for imparting training as stipulated in
terms of clarification issued by the Government of
India, he will be required to adjourn the hearing of
the petitioner’s application for grants of arms
licence by two weeks. In the meanwhile, he shall be
under obligation to ensure that adequate
arrangements are made for imparting training as
stipulated in the said clarification of the
Government of India.
(III) If the Licensing Authorities have
not been allowed so far to arrange for training as
stipulated in the clarification of the Government of
Patna High Court CWJC No.15403 of 2025(3) dt.28-04-2026
13/16
India, the District Magistrate shall be duty bound
to seek guidelines in this regard, from the Home
Department, Government of Bihar.
(IV) If no final decision has been taken
by the Respondents, allowing the Licensing
Authorities to arrange weapon handling training
from the armours, working in the State Police
Department etc, as stipulated in the clarification,
the Home Department Government of Bihar shall
be duty bound to ensure that necessary orders are
issued within two weeks of receipt of any such
requests from the District Magistrate, Rohtas, who
is the licensing authority.
(V) It is clarified that the District
Magistrate shall not reject the petitioner’s
application for grant of arms licence on the ground
of non-availability of certificate in Form S-1 unless
he records a finding that despite necessary
arrangements having been made in terms of the
clarification and opportunity having been given to
the petitioner to receive such training, the
petitioner has refused to receive the requisite
Patna High Court CWJC No.15403 of 2025(3) dt.28-04-2026
14/16
training.
(VI) The petitioner’s application shall
be considered afresh accordingly.
(VII) The Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Government of Bihar shall
examine as to why petitioner’s application had
remained pending, which was expected to be
disposed of within two months of the order of this
Court dated 28.09.2015 and consider initiating
disciplinary action against the then District
Magistrate, of Rohtas who failed to carry out the
direction of the Court.
(VIII) I express my strong displeasure
over the manner in which the petitioner’s
application for grant of Arms licence has been
handled, despite judicial orders of this Court. Such
irresponsible behaviour of the licensing authority
may have the consequence of public losing faith in
the system founded on Rule of law, altogether. I,
therefore, forewarn the Respondents to be more
cautious and careful in future while discharging
statutory functions, so as to avoid evil
Patna High Court CWJC No.15403 of 2025(3) dt.28-04-2026
15/16
consequences.
18. Considering the manner in which
the petitioner’s application has been rejected by
the licensing authority as has been discussed
above, I find it to be a fit case where cost should be
imposed.
19. Accordingly, this application is
allowed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) to
be paid by the District Magistrate, Rohtas to the
petitioner within four weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
20. Learned counsel for the State shall
ensure that the District Magistrate, Rohtas is
communicated about the fact that under today’s
order of the Court, dictated in the Court room in
this case, the District Magistrate has to remain
present in his office at 10.30 A.M. on 03.02.2020,
when the petitioner will be required to be given an
audience by him.”
6. On the other hand, Sri Vivek Prasad, learned
counsel for the State respondents submits that since the issues
have been put at rest, the authorities may be directed to examine
Patna High Court CWJC No.15403 of 2025(3) dt.28-04-2026
16/16
the facts and on finding the case of the petitioner to fall within
the parameters fixed by the Co-ordinate Bench, necessary
decisions can be taken in accordance with law.
7. Considering the submissions of the parties, this
Court directs the authorities to examine the facts and on finding
the case of the petitioner falling within the parameter of the
judgment relied upon by the petitioner, wherein the
retrospective requirement of training certificate has been waived
by the co-ordinate Bench and in the event, if it is found that this
case is covered by the said judgment, the necessary steps shall
be taken in similar terms within the period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt/production of a copy of this Order.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez
U
Checking your session…