Patna High Court
Satyendra PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The appellate orders rejecting the petitioner’s arms licence were set aside and the District Magistrate was directed to adjudicate the licence application, taking into account the threat to life and property.
Summary
Petitioner Satyendra Prasad applied for an arms licence on 23 June 2022, claiming threats to his life and property. The District Magistrate, Patna, rejected the application via Memo No. 3598 dated 17 October 2023 without recording any reasons or considering the alleged threat, and the Commissioner, Patna, affirmed this rejection on 19 November 2024. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quash of both orders and issuance of the licence, relying on the principle that a perceived threat, even without overt act, suffices for licence grant as held in Deepak Kumar v. State of Bihar. The State argued that licensing decisions rest on the authority’s subjective satisfaction but admitted the orders lacked any stated reasons. The High Court held that the appellate authorities failed to consider the threat perception and therefore set aside both the district magistrate’s and the commissioner’s orders, directing the District Magistrate to adjudicate the licence application within six weeks, after complying with any new procedural requirements.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Magistrate and the Commissioner erred in rejecting the arms licence application without considering the petitioner’s claim of threat to life and property.
- Whether a perceived threat, without an overt act, is sufficient ground for granting a firearm licence under the Arms Act.
- Whether the licensing authority is required to record its subjective satisfaction and reasons in the order of rejection.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- arms licence
- threat perception
- subjective satisfaction
- Arms Act
- writ petition
- quashing order
- public safety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.905 of 2025
======================================================
Satyendra Prasad Son of Krishna Prasad, Resident of Village- Pakartar,
Niwasi Chak, P.S.- Dhanarua, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Directed General of Police, Police Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna.
4. District Magistrate, Patna.
5. District Arms Magistrate, Patna.
6. Sr. Supretendent of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
7. Office Incharge, Dhanarua Police Station.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Deepak Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (01)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 05-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel-01 for the State.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“1. For quashing the order dated
19.11.2024 passed by the learned court of
commissioner, Patna Parmandal, Patna vide Arms
Appeal case No. 247-2024 by which learned court of
commissioner has rejected the Arms Appeal Of
petitioner arises out of order dated 17.10.2023 Vide
Memo no.- 3598 issued by the District Arms
Patna High Court CWJC No.905 of 2025(6) dt.05-05-2026
2/5
Magistrate/District Magistrate Patna by which
application of petitioner with regard to issuing the
arms license was rejected without any proper
rhymes and reason knowingly and deliberately
aware with the fact that life and property of
petitioner is in under threat.
II. After quashing the aforesaid rejection
order issue an arms License in favor of petitioner
for which he has already submitted application in
the prescribed form with all required documents
before the authorities of Bihar on 23.06.2022
immediately for the purpose to save his life and
property.
III. To further command and direct the
respondent to enquire over the matter and guilty
respondents may punish accordance with law.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due
to business rival and social work, the petitioner is under threat
and for saving his life and property, he requires arms license
from the authority concerned. Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner applied for an arm-license before the District
Magistrate, Patna whereafter the District Magistrate issued two
Patna High Court CWJC No.905 of 2025(6) dt.05-05-2026
3/5
letters to the Senior Superintendent of Police Patna and Office
In-charge, Dhanarua police station but, when nothing was done,
the petitioner filed CWJC No. 3650 of 2023 for redressal of his
grievance which was disposed of with a direction to the District
Magistrate/District Arms Magistrate, Patna to dispose off the
application filed by the petitioner, for grant of arms license but,
the District Magistrate, without considering the threat of life and
property and as also there being no recommendation of police,
rejected the application of the petitioner. It is next submitted that
pursuant to the order dated 19.09.2023 passed by this Court in
CWJC No. 3650 of 2023, the District Magistrate, Patna rejected
the application of the petitioner for grant of arms license vide
Memo No. 3598 dated 17.10.2023. It is further submitted that in
compliance to the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by this Court
in CWJC No. 5259 of 2024, the petitioner filed an Arms Appeal
before the learned court of Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna
in Arms Appeal No. 247 of 2024 which was rejected without
considering the grounds of threat by passing the impugned order
dated 19.11.2024. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.905 of 2025(6) dt.05-05-2026
4/5
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, counsel for the State supports
the decision taken by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna 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 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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.905 of 2025(6) dt.05-05-2026
5/5
with any overt-act for such grant of license, in view of the
factual background, which is evident from record, this Court
sets aside the Memo No. 3598 dated 17.10.2023 passed by the
District Magistrate, Patna and the order dated 19.11.2024 passed
by the learned court of commissioner, Patna Parmandal, Patna
vide Arms Appeal case No. 247-2024.
6. 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
on 23.06.2022 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 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.