Patna High Court
Ranjan Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the licensing authorities erred in refusing the arms licence as they failed to satisfy the statutory conditions of Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, and therefore set aside the impugned orders.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjan Kumar Singh, sought various writs including mandamus and certiorari to compel the District Magistrate and other officials to grant him an arms licence under the Arms Act, 1959, alleging that his earlier applications were arbitrarily rejected without considering the police report and relevant statutory provisions. The petitioner argued that the licensing authority had misapplied Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act and the corresponding Arms Rules, ignoring his legitimate security concerns and the absence of any prohibited arms. The respondents contended that the licensing authority’s discretion under the Act allowed refusal on grounds of public peace and safety. The Court examined the statutory language of Section 14, which limits refusal to cases where public safety is compromised, and noted that the authorities had not recorded valid reasons under the Act. Concluding that the orders were issued without proper consideration of the statutory criteria, the Court set aside both the District Magistrate’s and the Divisional Commissioner’s orders and directed the District Arms Magistrate to adjudicate the licence application within six weeks. The writ petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner correctly exercised their discretion under Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, in refusing the petitioner’s arms licence.
- Whether the refusal of the licence was in violation of the procedural requirement to record reasons as mandated by Section 14(3) of the Arms Act.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a licence despite the absence of a specific security threat, based on the provisions of the Arms Act and relevant case law.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 13, 14
- Arms Rules, 2016 — s. 13, 14
Subjects
- Arms licence
- Section 13 Arms Act
- Section 14 Arms Act
- Writ of Mandamus
- Certiorari
- Public safety
- Licensing authority discretion
- Administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2545 of 2025
======================================================
Ranjan Kumar Singh S/o-Late Chunnua Prasad Singh R/o-Vill and Post-
Chaugain (802115), P.S.-Murar, Dist.-Buxar, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna-
800001.
2. The District Magistrate, Buxar, Pin-802101, Bihar.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Buxar, Pin-802101, Bihar.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Division, Dumraon, Pin-802119, Buxar,
Bihar.
5. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sub-Division, Dumraon, Pin-802119,
Buxar, Bihar.
6. The Station House Officer, P.S.-Murar, PIn-802115, District-Buxar, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhinav Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (16)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 11-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s): -
i. For issuance of writ in the nature of
Mandamus for commanding and directing
the concerned respondent i.e. responded
number 02 and 03 to act in accordance with
Section 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959
and Rule 13 and 14 of Arms Rule, 2016.
ii. For issuance of Writ in the nature of
Mandamus to direct the Respondent No. -
02 to reconsider and Arms Case No. 12 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2545 of 2025(4) dt.11-05-2026
2/10
2021 which was arbitrarily discharged in
haste and vengeance due to Contempt case.
iii. For issuance of Writ in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing and setting aside
the effect of order dt. 01/08/2023 passed in
Arms Case No. 12 of 2021 by Respondent
No.-02 and direct him to grant the same.
iv. For issuance of Writ in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing and setting aside
the effect of order dt. 22/10/2024 passed in
Arms Appeal No.- 215 of 2024 by and direct
Respondent No.- 02 to grant the same.
v. For issuance of Writ in the nature of
Mandamus to direct the Respondent No. 2
to grant the Arms License to the petitioner
for the safety of the life and property.
vi. For issuance of the Writ in the nature of
Mandamus for imposing coast over the
respondents for allegedly violating and
intentionally misusing the order/direction
given by this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.-
11425 of 2022 vide order dt.- 01/05/2023
causing loss of time and energy of the
petitioner and also leading to mental and
physical agony.
vii. For issuance of the Writ in the nature of
Mandamus for imposing coast over the
respondents for allegedly violating and
misusing the powers conferred under
Section 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959
and Rule 13 and 14 of the Arms Rule, 2016
and directions issued under Sub-Clause (C)
of Clause (ii) of Circular Number V-
11016/16/2009-Arms, Ministry of Home
Affairs (IS-II Division/Arms Section) AND
Clause (V) of Circular Number
11026/16/2009-Arms, Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs (IS-II
Division/Arms Section), which leads to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2545 of 2025(4) dt.11-05-2026
3/10
wastage of petitioner's precious time and
also cause mental and physical agony.
viii. For issuance of Writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing the respondents and
the State of Bihar to properly follow and
comply with the directions laid down under
Section 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959
and Rule 13 and 14 of Arms Rule, 2016 and
directions issued under Sub-Clause (C) of
Clause (ii) of Circular Number V-
11016/16/2009-Arms, Ministry of Affairs
Home (IS-11 Division/Arms Section) AND
Clause (V) of Circular Number
11026/16/2009-Arms, Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs (IS-II
Division/Arms Section).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
reasons for rejection which has been incorporated in the order
impugned dated 07.12.2023 in Misc. Arms Case No.
IX157/2022 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 on 01/08/2023, the Respondent No. 02 merely
Patna High Court CWJC No.2545 of 2025(4) dt.11-05-2026
4/10
undertook the procedural formalities and, without considering
the merits of the petitioner’s claim, arbitrarily rejected the
application by grossly ignoring the order passed by the Hon’ble
Court in CWJC No. 11425 of 2022 dated 28/07/2022. It has
further been submitted that after the rejection order passed by
the District Arms Magistrate, Buxar, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 821 of 2024
arising out of order dated 01.12.2023, wherein this Hon’ble
Court, vide order dated 01.08.2024, directed the petitioner to
file an appropriate petition before the Commissioner, Patna
Division. Consequently, on 06.08.2024, the petitioner filed
Arms Appeal No. 215 of 2024 before the Commissioner, Patna
Division. However, the learned authority, vide impugned order
dated 22.10.2024, mechanically dismissed the appeal ignoring
the grounds contemplated under Section 13 of the Arms Act,
and rejected the same merely on two grounds, namely: (i) that
the petitioner has no security threat, and (ii) that the
Superintendent of Police had only forwarded the report. It is
pertinent to mention that this Hon’ble Court, in CWJC No. 4117
of 2020, vide judgment dated 27.11.2024, has categorically held
that “Arms Licence cannot be denied solely on the ground that
the applicant does not have any specific security threat or
Patna High Court CWJC No.2545 of 2025(4) dt.11-05-2026
5/10
imminent danger.
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 that the petitioner is possessing a huge
chunk of land located in marketed area and on highway and
people with criminal background frequently try to encroach the
same and this fact has not been controverted by the local police
and, as also, character of the petitioner having been examined
by the local police having not been found to be negative and
there being nothing contrary in the police record, the local
police having recommended for such grant of license not been
appreciated by the licensing authority, deserves to be interfered
Patna High Court CWJC No.2545 of 2025(4) dt.11-05-2026
6/10
with in order to enable the petitioner who seeks such license for
his personal safety. The issues of grant of Arms License to the
applicant after examining the occupation and the nature of threat
of the persons 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 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 counsel for respondents
endorsed the decision taken by the District Magistrate, Patna
submitting that it is the subjective satisfaction of the licensing
Patna High Court CWJC No.2545 of 2025(4) dt.11-05-2026
7/10
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
wherein the petitioner’s nature of business has already been
disclosed and 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-
(1) to be prohibited by this
Act or by any other law for
Patna High Court CWJC No.2545 of 2025(4) dt.11-05-2026
8/10
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 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 and, as also, 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.2545 of 2025(4) dt.11-05-2026
9/10
Public Peace and Public Safety 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 consideration, this Court
sets aside both the orders i.e., order dated 22.10.2024 passed in
Arms Appeal No. 215 of 2024 by the Divisional Commissioner,
Patna as well as the order dated 01.08.2023 passed in Memo
No.12 of 2021 by the District Arms Magistrate, Patna.
9. Consequently, the District Arms Magistrate, Patna,
is directed to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner for grant of
license on the basis of earlier application filed by this petitioner,
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.2545 of 2025(4) dt.11-05-2026
10/10
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 disposed of.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
rishi/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.