Patna High Court
Shyam Sundar PrasadversusThe state of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The orders rejecting the licence were quashed because the licensing authorities failed to consider the threat perception and did not record the requisite subjective satisfaction, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.
Summary
Shyam Sundar Prasad applied for an N.P. bore rifle license which was rejected by the District Magistrate, West Champaran. The rejection was upheld by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division. The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that the licensing authorities failed to consider a police report of a prior murderous attack on him and did not record the required subjective satisfaction under Sections 13(3)(b) and 14(1)(b)(2) of the Arms Act, 1959. The High Court held that the authorities erred by not addressing the threat perception and by not providing reasons, thereby violating the precedent that overt acts are not necessary for threat perception. Consequently, the Court set aside both the district magistrate’s and the commissioner’s orders and directed the District Magistrate to re‑adjudicate the licence application within six weeks. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the licensing authority must record its subjective satisfaction when refusing a licence under Sections 13(3)(b) and 14(1)(b)(2) of the Arms Act, 1959.
- Whether a threat perception, without an overt act, is sufficient ground to grant a firearm licence under the Arms Act and Arms Rules, 2016.
- Whether the failure to consider a police report of a prior attack constitutes a jurisdictional error warranting quash of the orders.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 13(3)(b), 14(1)(b)(2)
- Arms Rules, 2016 — s. 25
Subjects
- Arms licence
- Threat perception
- Subjective satisfaction
- Quashing order
- High Court writ
- Public safety
- Licensing authority
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3669 of 2025
======================================================
Shyam Sundar Prasad S/o- Late Bhrigunath Prasad Resident of Village - Kali
Bag Jora Inar, P.S.- Bettiah Nagar (Kali Bag O.P.), District - West Champaran
at Bettiah, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The state of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar.
2. District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah. Divisional Commissioner,
Tirhut division, Muzaffarpur.
3. District Arms Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah.
4. Additional District Magistrate (Arms), West Champaran, at Bettiah.
5. Superintendent of Police, West Champaran, at Bettiah.
6. S.H.O. Bettiah Nagar, Police Station, West Champaran, at Bettiah.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manisha Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Alok, Standing Counsel (07)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 23-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel-07 for the State.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“That this is an application
for quashing the order dated
02.01.2025 passed in Arms Appeal
Case No. 149/2024 by the
Commissioner, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur whereby the appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3669 of 2025(4) dt.23-03-2026
2/6
order dated 09.03.2024 contained in
Memo No. 89/Arms, dated 09.03.24
passed in Case No. 05/2024 by the
District Magistrate, West Champaran,
Bettiah was rejected; for quashing the
order dated 09.03.2024
(communication to the petitioner by
memo no. 89/Arms, West Champaran,
Bettiah whereby and where under he
was pleased to reject the petitioner's
application for grant of a N.P.Bore
Rifle license, for directing the
respondent authorities especially the
district magistrate, West Champaran
to grant to the petitioner a N.P. Bore
Rifle license without any delay and for
all consequential reliefs to which the
petitioner is found entitled during the
course of hearing of this writ
application. And other relief which the
petitioner found deserving to be
granted for arms license under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3669 of 2025(4) dt.23-03-2026
3/6
Arms Act 1959 as well as 25 of the
Arms Rule, 2016 under the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order has been passed pursuant to the direction issued
by this Court on 02.05.2023 passed in CWJC No. 12152 of 2022
and the reason for rejection which has been incorporated in the
order impugned dated 09.03.2024, goes to show that the
authorities/District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah 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, which has been filed on the ground of the
antecedent, has already been examined by the local police and
as also by the Superintendent of Police, wherein, there is a
specific report that the petitioner is dealing in the business of
gold and silver in Meena Bazar and was subjected to murderous
attack by unknown persons for which Kali Bagh PS Case No.
239 of 2000 (Annexure P/2) was registered, which facts have
Patna High Court CWJC No.3669 of 2025(4) dt.23-03-2026
4/6
not been considered whereas, these facts have been incorporated
in the original order and as also in the appellate order passed by
the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, who has
upheld the decision of the District Magistrate, West Champaran,
Bettiah. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the
order of this Court dated 01.02.2016 passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench in CWJC No. 13391 of 2014 (Deepak Kumar v. The
State of Bihar & Ors), submits that the lack of specific evidence
regarding threat perception does not form the ground of
rejection of grant of license and the threat perception does not
mean that a person has to suffer any overt-act for entitlement of
grant of fire-arm license.
4. On the other hand, Sri Kumar Alok, learned
Standing Counsel-07, supports the decision taken by the District
Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah and as also that of the
Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, by 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. But
insofar as the subjective satisfaction is concerned, which is
required to have been mentioned/indicated in the order
Patna High Court CWJC No.3669 of 2025(4) dt.23-03-2026
5/6
impugned and as also in the appellate order, which is apparently
missing, for which, learned State counsel in view of the factual
position fairly submits that such consideration is indeed missing
from the orders impugned.
5. 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
spelled out and as also a murderous attack, 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 which, in express
terms, and the Co-ordinate Bench having held that with regard
to threat perceptions, it is not required that a person has to suffer
with any overt-act for such grant of license, in view of the
factual background, which is evident from record, this Court
sets aside both the orders i.e., order dated 09.03.24 passed in
Case No. 05/2024 by the District Magistrate, West Champaran,
Bettiah as well as the order dated 02.01.2025 passed in Arms
Appeal Case No. 149/2024 by the Commissioner, Tirhut
Division, Muzaffarpur (Annexures P/4 and P/5 respectively).
Patna High Court CWJC No.3669 of 2025(4) dt.23-03-2026
6/6
6. Consequently, the District Magistrate, West
Champaran, is directed to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner
for grant of license on the basis of earlier application filed by
this petitioner on 12.07.2018 and in case, any new format of
application has been introduced for 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.
7. Accordingly, the writ petitioner stands allowed.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez
U
Checking your session…