Patna High Court
Ajay Kumar SrivastavaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the refusal to grant the arms licence was unlawful because the licensing authorities failed to satisfy the conditions of Section 14 of the Arms Act and did not record the requisite reasons, leading to the quashing of both orders.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajay Kumar Srivastava, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his application for an arms licence by the District Magistrate, Patna, and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal by the Divisional Commissioner. He argued that the authorities wrongly relied on his alleged non‑residence and failed to record reasons as mandated by Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. The respondents contended that the licensing authority’s satisfaction regarding public peace and safety justified the refusal. The High Court examined the statutory provisions, particularly Section 14, and found that the authorities had not demonstrated any security concern nor complied with the requirement to state reasons for refusal. Consequently, the Court set aside both the 2015 order of the District Magistrate and the 2023 order of the Commissioner and directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the licence application within six weeks, allowing a police report if needed. The writ petition was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal to grant an arms licence under Section 13(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, was justified in the absence of recorded reasons as required by Section 14.
- Whether the licensing authority complied with the statutory duty to record and communicate reasons for refusal under Section 14(3).
- Whether the appellate and district magistrate orders rejecting the licence application are liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh adjudication of his arms licence application.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 10, 12, 13(3)(b), 14, 3, 4, 5, 6
Subjects
- Arms licence
- Arms Act 1959
- Section 14
- writ of certiorari
- licensing authority
- public peace
- public safety
- district magistrate
- appellate authority
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5978 of 2025
======================================================
Ajay Kumar Srivastava Son of Late Madan Mohan Prasad Srivastava
Resident of Mohalla-R.M.S. Colony, P.S.-Kankarbagh, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Patna.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Patna.
6. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Patna.
7. The Arms Magistrate, Patna.
8. The Officer-in-Charge, Kankarbagh, District-Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Sharda Nand Mishra, Ranjan Kr Jha, Isha
Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (25)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
respondents.
2. This writ application has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:-
i) For issuance of writ in the
nature of certiorari for quashing the order
dated 23.03.2023 passed by Respondent
Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna in Arms
Appeal No. 372/2022 by which he rejected the
appeal filed by the petitioner in the light of the
order dated 15.11.2022 passed in CWJC
No.8272/2021 only on the ground that on the
date of hearing petitioner and his Learned
Counsel was absent, for reason, not interfered
Patna High Court CWJC No.5978 of 2025(3) dt.06-04-2026
2/7
the order dated 23.12.2015 and its
communication to the petitioner bearing
Memo No.44 dated 06.01.2016 passed by
District Magistrate, Patna.
ii) For further quashing the order
dated 23.12.2015, communicated to the
petitioner bearing Memo No.44 dated
06.01.2016 passed by District Magistrate,
Patna by which the application bearing Arms
Case No. 09-77/2010 for issuance of the Arms
License to the petitioner has been rejected, on
the ground that the petitioner is not residing at
the address mentioned in the application
rather residing in Delhi and has no any
special reason for issuance of the Arms
License to the petitioner, hence application of
the petitioner rejected under section 13 (3) (b)
and section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959.
iii) For further issuance of
direction to the Divisional Commissioner,
Patna to reconsider the Arms Appeal
No.372/2022 filed in the light of the order
dated 15.11.2022 passed in CWJC
No.8272/2021 by giving due opportunity of
hearing for producing his case.
iv) For further issuance of
direction to the authority concerned to
consider case of the petitioner for granting of
the Arms License on account of the threat to
the life and property to the petitioner and also
taking into consideration that the earlier
license was issued in the name of the father of
the petitioner now he died.
v) For further issuance of
direction to respondents for considering the
appeal filed before the Commissioner and also
issuing direction to the respondent District
Magistrate for considering the application of
the petitioner on the ground they are residing
at address, which is given in his application.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5978 of 2025(3) dt.06-04-2026
3/7
vi) For further giving other legal
consequential benefit to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the
reasons for rejection which has been incorporated in the order
impugned dated 23.12.2015 in Arms Case No. 09-77/2010
passed by District Magistrate, Patna, goes to show that by
referring Section 13 (3) (b) and Section 14 (1) (b) (2) of Arms
Act 1959, wherein, the Licensing Authorities have been
empowered to refuse to grant a license on satisfaction, when it
transpires to the authorities that for security of the public peace
or for public safety, would be endangered. It has next been
submitted that the petitioner’s application for obtaining license
has been rejected by the authorities on the ground that the
petitioner does not reside at the address given in his application,
which is not an essential requirement for grant of Arms License
to the petitioner, while the fact is that at the time of
investigation, the petitioner had gone to Delhi, which reflects
from the order impugned itself.
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.5978 of 2025(3) dt.06-04-2026
4/7
Section 12, if the licensing authority is satisfied that the person
by whom the license is sought 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
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents endorsed the decision taken by the District
Magistrate, Patna 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.
6. Considering the submission of the parties, this
Court finds that the appellate authorities have not considered the
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.5978 of 2025(3) dt.06-04-2026
5/7
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
(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
Patna High Court CWJC No.5978 of 2025(3) dt.06-04-2026
6/7
circumstances, submissions of the parties and as also in light of
Section 14 of the Arms Act, it is evident that the District
Magistrate and the Appellate Authority, while rejecting the
application of the petitioner, have passed the orders, being
oblivious of the legal requirement of the provisions of Section
14 of the Arms Act, which provides for refusal of the license
only in the case, where the security of 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 by recording reasons to that effect.
8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court sets aside
both the orders i.e., order dated 23.03.2023 passed in Arms
Appeal No. 372/2022 by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna as
well as the order dated 23.12.2015 passed in Arms Case No.
I09-77/2010 by the District Magistrate, Patna
9. Consequently, the District 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.5978 of 2025(3) dt.06-04-2026
7/7
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 the date
of filing of a representation by the petitioner before the
authorities concerned.
10. Needless to say, a police report may be called
for from the local police before adjudication of the application
in question.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of
with the aforesaid direction.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
M.E.H./-
U
Checking your session…