Patna High Court
Brij Nandan Singh @ Braj Nandan SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that refusal of an arms licence cannot be based solely on the absence of a recorded threat perception and that the licensing and appellate authorities failed to identify any statutory ground under Section 14, rendering the orders arbitrary and liable to be quashed.
Summary
The petitioner applied for a rifle licence under Section 13 of the Arms Act, citing personal necessity and a history of threats to his family. Despite favorable police verification, the District Magistrate rejected the application on the ground of insufficient income and lack of explicit threat perception, a decision affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner. The petitioner challenged both orders by filing a writ petition seeking certiorari and mandamus. The High Court examined the statutory scheme of Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act and the 2016 Arms Rules, holding that the absence of a recorded threat is not a permissible ground for refusal and that no statutory disqualification was established. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders dated 25‑11‑2019 and 20‑06‑2023 and directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the licence within two months.
Issues considered
- Can the absence of a specific threat perception in the police verification report constitute a valid ground for refusal of an arms licence under Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959?
- Did the licensing authority comply with the statutory requirements and the remand directions when rejecting the licence application?
- Did the appellate authority correctly exercise its jurisdiction in affirming the lower order without independent examination?
- Are the orders of the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner arbitrary and violative of the scheme of the Arms Act?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 13, 14
Subjects
- Arms licence
- Arms Act
- Section 13
- Section 14
- writ petition
- certiorari
- mandamus
- administrative discretion
- threat perception
- police verification
- remand
- appellate review
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3231 of 2024
======================================================
Brij Nandan Singh @ Braj Nandan Singh s/o Ram Tapasya Singh, Resid. of
village-Bararhi, P.O.-Bhadwar, P.S. Bagengola, District-Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner Patna Division, Patna.
3. The Collector of District Buxar, District-Buxar.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Buxar, District-Buxar.
5. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Dumraon, District-Buxar.
6. The S.H.O. Bagengola Police Station, District-Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Mohan Kumar Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel 6
Mr. AC to SC-6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-06-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ application has been filed for the
grant of following reliefs:
“(i). For the issuance of writ in the
nature of Certiorari for quashing and setting
aside the order Passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Patna Resp. No.2 in Arms
Appeal case no. 38/2021, Dt. 20.06.2023 vide
Annex. 6 whereby and whereunder he has
affirmed the order Passed by the Collector of
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
2/19
the District Buxar, Resp. No. 3 in Arms Case
No. 192/2011 Dt. 25.11.2019 vide Annex.5.
(ii). For issuance of writ in the
nature of Mandamus directing /commanding
the Resp. No. 3 for grant of licence of Rifle to
the Petitioner who is Licensing authority U/S
13 of the Arms Act.
(iii) For grant of any other relief or
reliefs for which the Petitioner is entitled to in
accordance with law and facts of the case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had applied for grant of a rifle licence in the prescribed
form before the Arms Magistrate, Buxar, on the grounds of
personal necessity and protection of his life and property. Upon
receipt of the application, an enquiry was conducted through the
concerned authorities. The Officer-in-Charge, Bagengola Police
Station, after verification, recommended the petitioner's case for
grant of licence. The recommendation was successively endorsed
through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dumraon, and the
Superintendent of Police, Buxar, and thereafter placed before the
District Magistrate, Buxar for consideration. A copy of the original
application has been brought on record as Annexure-1.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
3/19
4. It is submitted that despite the favourable police
verification and recommendation, the District Magistrate, Buxar,
by order dated 23.02.2016 passed in Arms Case No. 192 of 2011,
rejected the petitioner's application solely on the ground that his
annual income was Rs. 63,000/- and, therefore, he was allegedly
not competent to hold an arms licence. The said order has been
annexed as Annexure-2.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Arms Appeal
No. 164 of 2016 before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna. The
appellate authority, upon consideration of the matter, remanded the
case to the District Magistrate for fresh consideration in light of
the judgment of this Court where the court has given guidelines
and provisions of law for grant of Arms License u/s 13 & 14 of the
Arms Act which has been reported in 2015 (4) PLJR 212 and
directed verification of the petitioner's antecedents and character
through the local police authorities.
5. It is further submitted that pursuant to the remand,
fresh reports were called for from the Superintendent of Police,
Buxar, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dumraon, and
Bagengola Police Station. Upon verification, the police authorities
submitted their report vide Letter No. 3454 dated 19.08.2019,
which has been annexed as Annexure-4. Learned counsel submits
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
4/19
that the said verification report found no criminal antecedent
against the petitioner and did not disclose any adverse material
regarding his character or conduct.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the police report also recorded that the petitioner's grandfather,
Late Jugli Singh, had been killed by Naxalites in the year 1987 and
that one Vishwanath Paswan, a servant of the petitioner's family,
was similarly killed by Naxalites in connection with Bagengola
P.S. Case No. 39 of 2000 dated 31.12.2000 registered under
Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the
petitioner, these circumstances demonstrated a continuing
atmosphere of threat and insecurity faced by his family. The report
further recorded that the petitioner's livelihood was based on
agriculture and that his annual income was approximately Rs.
4,00,000/-.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid materials, the District
Magistrate, Buxar, once again rejected the petitioner's application
by order dated 25.11.2019 passed in Arms Case No. 192 of 2011,
holding, inter alia, that the police authorities had merely forwarded
the report without specifically recording any threat perception and
recommending for grant of licence. The said order has been
annexed as Annexure-5.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
5/19
7. Learned counsel further submits that the second order
of rejection was passed in complete disregard of the remand
directions issued by the appellate authority and without proper
consideration of the principles laid down by this Court in the
judgment referred to therein. According to the petitioner, the
reason for rejecting the application for grant of licence is unknown
to law and is arbitrary.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Arms Appeal
No. 38 of 2021 before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna. It is
contended that the appellate authority failed to independently
examine the legality of the order passed by the District Magistrate
and, by order dated 20.06.2023, merely affirmed the rejection
without addressing the grounds raised by the petitioner. The
appellate order has been brought on record as Annexure-6.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends
that both the impugned orders dated 25.11.2019 and 20.06.2023
are arbitrary, mechanical and contrary to the scheme of Sections
13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. It is submitted that the petitioner
possesses a clean antecedent, no criminal case is pending against
him, and the competent police authorities have never reported any
adverse material disentitling him from obtaining an arms licence.
The rejection, therefore, is stated to be based on considerations
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
6/19
extraneous to the statutory grounds contemplated under the Arms
Act and is liable to be set aside.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent No. 3, the District Magistrate, Buxar, submits that the
writ petition is devoid of merit and the impugned orders passed by
the licensing authority as well as the appellate authority are fully
justified in law.
Learned counsel submits that upon receipt of the
petitioner's application for grant of a rifle licence, reports were
called for from the police authorities. It is contended that the
application was merely forwarded by the Officer-in-Charge,
Bagengola Police Station, the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Dumraon and the Superintendent of Police, Buxar vide Letter No.
739/Go dated 24.02.2015, and the same was never specifically
recommended for grant of licence. A copy of the said report has
been brought on record as Annexure R-3/1 to the counter affidavit.
10. It is further submitted that the petitioner's application
was initially rejected by the District Magistrate, Buxar vide order
dated 23.02.2016 passed in Arms Case No. 192 of 2011. Though
the matter was subsequently remanded by the Divisional
Commissioner, Patna for fresh consideration in light of the law
laid down by this Court under Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
7/19
the remand did not create any vested right in favour of the
petitioner for grant of licence.
11. Learned counsel submits that after remand, fresh
reports were called for from the Superintendent of Police, Buxar,
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dumraon and the Officer-in-
Charge, Bagengola Police Station, which were submitted vide
Letter No. 3606/Go dated 01.09.2019. The said report has been
annexed as Annexure R-3/2 to the counter affidavit. Referring to
the police verification report, learned counsel submits that no
material was found indicating any threat perception to the
petitioner. It is pointed out that the report specifically recorded that
the petitioner was not on the hit list of any extremist organisation,
fundamentalist organisation or notorious criminal group and that
no criminal incident had occurred with the petitioner. According to
the respondents, the relevant findings in the report were as
follows:
(i) The petitioner was not on the hit list of extremists;
(ii) The petitioner was not on the hit list of any
fundamentalist organisation;
(iii) The petitioner was not on the hit list of any
notorious criminal; and
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
8/19
(iv) No criminal incident had taken place with the
petitioner.
On the basis of the aforesaid materials, the District
Magistrate, Buxar considered the matter afresh and passed a
reasoned order dated 25.11.2019 in Arms Case No. 192 of 2011
rejecting the petitioner's claim.
12. Learned counsel submits that the licensing authority
found that no specific recommendation for grant of licence had
been made and also there was absence of any threat perception
and, therefore, exercised its statutory discretion under Section
14(1)(b)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959 to refuse grant of licence. The
said order has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ
petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner thereafter
preferred Arms Appeal No. 38 of 2021 before the Divisional
Commissioner, Patna. Upon consideration of the records and after
affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the appellate
authority affirmed the findings recorded by the District Magistrate
and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 20.06.2023.
13. Learned counsel accordingly contends that both the
licensing authority and the appellate authority have passed
reasoned and well-considered orders on the basis of the materials
available on record. It is submitted that the petitioner failed to
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
9/19
establish any threat perception or any other circumstance
warranting grant of an arms licence and, therefore, no case for
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made
out. The writ petition, according to the respondents, is liable to be
dismissed.
14. Before proceeding to examine the validity of the
impugned orders, it would be apposite to notice the scheme of
Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. For ready reference,
Section 14 of the Arms Act is quoted hereinbelow:
“14. Refusal of licences.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13,
the 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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
10/19
(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.”
While Section 13 provides for consideration of an
application for grant of an arms licence, Section 14 circumscribes
the power of the licensing authority to refuse such licence. The
statutory scheme leaves little room for doubt that refusal of an
arms licence cannot be founded upon subjective satisfactions or
extraneous considerations. The discretion vested in the licensing
authority is undoubtedly wide, but it is not unbridled and the
grounds of rejection of license have explicitly been given in the
Act. Such discretion must be exercised on relevant considerations
and within the four corners of the statute.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
11/19
15. This Court finds that the entire case of the
respondents rests on the premise that the police verification report
did not disclose any specific threat perception to the petitioner.
Relevant portion of the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the
District Magistrate is reproduced here for ready reference:
“vfHkys[k ij miyC/k dkxtkrksa ,oa izkIr iqfyl izfrosnu ds
voyksduksijkar ik;k x;k fd iqfyl v/kh{kd] cDlj ds i=kad 3606]
fnukad 01-09-2019 ds lkFk Fkkuk/;{k cxsu xksyk Fkkuk] cDlj dk izfrosnu
layXu gS ftlesa izfrosfnr fd;k x;k gS fd tkWap ds dze esa ik;k x;k gS
fd vkosnd ds ckck tqxqyh flag] is0& Lo0 nsoy flag] dks uDlykbZV }
kjk o’kZ 1987 esa Hknoj cjk<+h eksM+ ij xksyh ekjdj gR;k dj nh xbZ Fkh
rFkk buds vkneh fo”oukFk ikloku is0 Lo0 xjtq ikloku dks uDlykbZV
}kjk o’kZ 2000 esa xzke cjk<+h esa xksyh ekjdj gR;k dj fn;k x;k FkkA bl
laca/k esa cxsu xksyk Fkkuk dk.M la0&39@2000] fnukad 31-12-2000 /kkjk
302@34 Hkk0 n0 fo0 ntZ gqvk FkkA vkosnd dk iwoZo`r ,oa orZeku
vkpj.k vPNk crk;k x;k gSA vkosnd ,oa mlds ifjokj ds vU; lnL;
dh vkijkf/kd i`’BHkwfe ugha ik;k x;k gSA vkosnd ,oa mlds ifjokj ds
fdlh Hkh lnL; dks fdlh O;fDr vijk/kh ,oa uDly xzqi ls orZeku esa
/kedh ugh feyk gSA vkosnd ,oa mlds ifjokj dh ftfodksiktZu [ksrh gSA
vkosnd dh okf’kZd vk; [ksrh ls 4 ¼pkj½ yk[k :i;s crk;k x;k gSA
Fkkuk/;{k] cxsu xksyk ds mDr izfrosnu dks vuqe.My iqfyl inkf/kdkjh }
kjk flQZ vxzlkfjr fd;k x;k gSA mDr izfrosnu dks iqfyl v/kh{kd cDlj
}kjk Hkh flQZ vxzsrj dkjZokbZ gsrq vxzlkfjr fd;k x;k gSA iqfyl v/kh{kd]
cDlj@ vuqe.My iqfyl inkf/kdkjh] cDlj@ Fkkuk/;{k cxsu xksyk@ }
kjk vius mDr izfrosnu esa vkosnd dks “kL= vuqKfIr iznku djus gsrq
vuq”kalk ugha fd;k x;k gSA
iqfyl izfrosnu esa izfrosfnr dh xbZ ?kVuk djhc 20 o’kZ ,oa mlls
vf/kd le; dh gS ,oa orZeku le; esa fdlh Hkh O;fDRk@vijk/kh@uDly
xzqi ls /kedh ugha feyus dh ckr Hkh Fkkuk/;{k cxsu xksyk Fkkuk }kjk
izfrosfnr fd;k x;k gSA mDRk izfrosnuksa esa orZeku esa vkosnd ds
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
12/19
tku&eky dh lqj{kk ds laca/k esa dksbZ fof”k’V dkj.k dk mYys[k ugha fd;k
x;k gSA ” [Emphasis Supplied]
The District Magistrate, while rejecting the application
on 25.11.2019, repeatedly emphasized the absence of any express
threat perception in the police report and treated the same as a
decisive circumstance against the petitioner. The appellate
authority also proceeded on substantially the same reasoning while
affirming the order of rejection. The question which therefore
arises for consideration is whether absence of a specific threat
perception can, by itself, constitute a valid ground for refusal of an
arms licence under the Arms Act. The relevant paragraphs of
judgment dated 24.04.2026 passed in CWJC No. 3229 of 2024
which has been relied upon by the petitioner is quoted herein:
“ 15……...The Arms Rules, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as the “2016 Rules”) came
into force and has been enforced prescribing the
guidelines which are to be followed by the licensing
authority while proceeding to consider grant or
refusal of licence. Rule 12 of 2016 Rules along with
sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (3) are relevant for the
purpose of the present case inasmuch as the present
case relates to grant of licence for permissible arms
and ammunition specified in Category- 3 of
Schedule- 1 of the said Rules. The same is
reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
13/19
“12. Obligations of licensing
authority in certain cases. -(1) Save as
otherwise provided in the Act, every licensing
authority granting a licence in Form III to an
individual for the restricted or permissible
arms or ammunition as specified in category
1(b) and 1(c) or category III respectively in
Schedule I, shall have due regard to the
application of norms specified in sub-rules (2)
and (3).
(3) 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
(b) any dedicated sports person
being active member for the last two years, of
a shooting club or a rifle association, licensed
under these rules and who wants to pursue
sport shooting for target practice in a
structured learning process; оr
(c) any person in service or having
served in the Defence Forces, Central Armed
Police Forces or the State Police Force and
has genuine requirement to protect his life
and/or property”
16. Under the third schedule along with
the relevant format meant for grant of license also
indicates that apart from the conditions for grant of
license under the Act and the Rules, the information
given in the said forms have to be considered. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
14/19
relevant form requires an applicant to clearly
mention the purpose for which the license is
required.
17. As per sub rule 3(a) of Rule 12
extracted hereinabove the licensing authority based
on police report and on his own assessment may
consider an application of a person who by the very
nature of his business, profession, job or otherwise
has genuine requirement to protect his life and / or
property. Thus, it is clear that while deciding the
application for grant of licence the licensing
authority apart from the conditions mentioned in
Section 13 & 14 of the Arms Act has to consider the
provisions of Rule 12(3)(a) also where the very
purpose of the acquisition of arms has to be assessed
by the licensing authority on the basis of a police
report or on his own assessment.”
16. The Arms Act nowhere provides that an applicant
must establish the existence of an imminent threat to his life or
property as a condition precedent for consideration of his
application. Equally, Section 14 does not contemplate refusal of a
licence merely because the police authorities have not recorded
any specific threat perception. Had the legislature intended such a
requirement, the same would have found express mention in the
statute. The Court cannot read into the statute a condition which
the legislature itself has consciously omitted.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
15/19
17. A perusal of the impugned order further reveals that
the licensing authority has not recorded any finding that the
petitioner is prohibited by law from possessing firearms. There is
no finding that the petitioner is of unsound mind. There is no
finding that the petitioner is for any reason unfit to possess an arm.
There is equally no finding that grant of licence would endanger
public peace, public safety or public interest. In absence of such
findings, the statutory foundation necessary for refusal under
Section 14 is absent.
The materials available on record, on the contrary,
indicate that the petitioner's antecedents were duly verified by the
competent police authorities. No criminal case was reported to be
pending against him. No adverse report regarding his character,
conduct or reputation was submitted. The respondents have not
disputed these facts either in the impugned orders or in the counter
affidavit filed before this Court.
18. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the
matter had earlier travelled before the appellate authority in Arms
Appeal No. 164 of 2016. The Divisional Commissioner, while
remanding the matter, had specifically directed fresh consideration
in the light of the legal principles governing Sections 13 and 14 of
the Arms Act. The remand was not an empty formality. It required
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
16/19
the licensing authority to undertake a fresh and meaningful
examination of the petitioner's claim in accordance with law.
However, upon careful scrutiny of the order dated
25.11.2019, this Court finds that the licensing authority has
substantially reiterated its earlier approach and has failed to
address the core issue as to whether any statutory disqualification
existed against the petitioner. The order demonstrates that the
authority remained preoccupied with the absence of threat
perception while overlooking the more fundamental requirement
of identifying a legally sustainable ground for refusal under
Section 14.
19. Another aspect which deserves consideration is that
the police report itself recorded certain circumstances relied upon
by the petitioner regarding incidents affecting his family. The
report noted that the petitioner's grandfather was allegedly killed
by Naxalites in the year 1987 and that another person associated
with the family was also killed in a subsequent incident. Whether
such circumstances by themselves conclusively establish threat
perception is not the issue before this Court. What is significant is
that the authorities were required to objectively evaluate the
entirety of the materials on record. Instead, the application came to
be rejected solely because the police report did not expressly use
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
17/19
the phrase "threat perception". Such an approach reflects excessive
reliance on form rather than substance.
20. The submission of the respondents that the
application was merely forwarded and not specifically
recommended by the police authorities is equally of little
consequence. A recommendation by the police is not binding upon
the licensing authority; similarly, absence of a recommendation
cannot automatically result in rejection. What is material is
whether the verification process revealed any disqualification or
adverse material. Admittedly, none has been brought on record.
21. This Court is also unable to sustain the appellate
order dated 20.06.2023. An appellate authority is expected to
independently examine the legality, propriety and correctness of
the order under challenge. The order of the Divisional
Commissioner does not reflect any such exercise. The appellate
authority failed to examine whether the licensing authority had
identified any statutory ground under Section 14. It also failed to
consider whether the remand directions issued in the earlier appeal
had been faithfully complied with. The appellate order thus suffers
from the same infirmities which vitiate the original order.
22. The law is well settled that when a statute prescribes
specific grounds upon which an application may be rejected, an
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
18/19
authority cannot supplement those grounds by importing
considerations which find no place in the statutory framework.
Administrative discretion cannot substitute statutory requirements.
An order founded upon irrelevant considerations and ignoring
relevant considerations is vulnerable to judicial review and cannot
be permitted to stand.
23. This Court, therefore, finds that the impugned orders
are not supported by any legally sustainable reason. The petitioner
has remained in pursuit of his application for a considerable length
of time. The matter has already undergone one round of appellate
scrutiny and remand. All relevant materials are available on
record. The respondents have failed to point out any statutory
disqualification attached to the petitioner. In such circumstances,
remanding the matter yet again would merely prolong the
litigation and result in further harassment to the petitioner without
serving any useful purpose.
24. This Court is therefore satisfied that the impugned
orders dated 25.11.2019 and 20.06.2023 are arbitrary,
unsustainable in law, contrary to the scheme of Sections 13 and 14
of the Arms Act, and liable to be quashed. They are accordingly
quashed. Since the petitioner is pursuing his case for grant of
licence since 2014 i.e. now for the last twelve years, as such, a
Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026
19/19
direction is issued to the District Magistrate, Buxar to consider the
grant of licence in favour of the petitioner in the light of the
aforesaid discussions within a period of two months from the date
of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.
25. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this
application is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
kiran/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 22.06.2026.
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.