Dismissed¶31

Amit Kumar Singh v. District Magistrate Collectorate Office

Jharkhand HC12 Feb 2026WPC/1783/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi — W.P.(C) No. 1783 of 2022, Amit Kumar Singh v. District Magistrate & Ors. — enhancement of ammunition/bullet quota; additional arms licence with all-India validity; Arms Rule 2016; aspiring shooter quota (15,000 at a time / 30,000 annually); .30-06 rifle beyond 8 mm specified category; SP recommendation memo no. 8697 dated 17.12.2021; District Arms Magistrate memo no. 98 dated 17.08.2021; petitioner unrepresented, decided on affidavits; writ dismissed, pending I.As. disposed; Deepak Roshan, J.; 12 February 2026.

What did the court decide?

On the averments in the counter affidavit dated 14.03.2023 and the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the writ application. ¶30

Amit Kumar Singh Vs District Magistrate Collectorate Office — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:3895

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 1783 of 2022

¶4

Amit Kumar Singh, Aged about 37 years, S/o Rana Pratap Singh, R/o Anand Nagar, Near Soren Petrol Pump Bypass Road, PS-Rikhya, PO+District-Deoghar ... … Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

District Magistrate, Collectorate Office, PO+PS+District-Deoghar

¶7

District Arms Magistrate, Collectorate Office, PO+PS+District-Deoghar

¶8

Superintendent of Police, PO+PS+District, Deoghar

¶9

... … Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶11

For the Petitioner(s) : None For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V

¶12

¶13

Order No.4 /Dated: 12^th February 2026

¶14

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for

¶15

the following reliefs:

¶16

“1(a) For a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to enhance the quota of ammunition and provide additional quota of weapon with all India validity.

¶17

b. For any other writ, order, direction as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶18

None appeared for the petitioner even on repeated calls. Accordingly, this Court is proceeding to decide this case on the basis of affidavits filed by the respective parties.

¶19

A counter affidavit has been filed in this case wherein the ground for not acceding to the prayer of the petitioner is indicated. For brevity, paragraph nos. 6 to 12 of the counter affidavit dated 14.03.2023 are

¶20

extracted hereinbelow:

¶21

“6. That the petitioner purchased the Arms .32 bore rifle and the same was endorsed in his arms license with bullets capacity of 50 at a time and 200 annually.

¶22

7. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner submitted an application dated 12.07.2021 although not in the proper and specified format under the Arms rule before District Magistrate, Deoghar for obtaining three more arms weapon of .12 bore gun, one rifle and .32 Pistol as well as 30000 bullets capacity annually for practice.

¶23

8. That the District Arms Magistrate sent a letter to S.P. Deoghar vide memo no. 98 dated 17.08.2021 seeking clear opinion regarding enhancement of

¶24

¶25

bullet quota and additional arms license as sought by the petitioner.

¶26

9. That the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar recommended only for the enhancement of bullets quota vide memo no 8697, dated 17.12.2021 (annexure-9 of the present writ) mentioning the reason that the petitioner needs more bullets for his practice. In the mean time there were some correspondence took place between concern officials.

¶27

10. That it is humbly stated and submitted that there is a maximum limit of bullet quota has been fixed for aspiring shooter as 15000 at any one time and 30000 annually for the specified type of firearms i.e Rifle/Pistol .22 LR Center-fire rifle with caliber up to 8 mm. Revolver/Pistol; Shotgun of caliber up to 12 bore/gauge. The petitioner does not come under the purview of this provision since, the petitioner has rifle of 30.06 (larger than 8 mm) other than the specified category. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled for the enhancement of bullet capacity. Since he has no such firearm under which the enhanced quota is permissible.

¶28

11. That the petitioner has not even applied for additional license under enhanced permissible category of arms in specified format under arms rule 2016 neither any recommendation received by the licensing authority from police.

¶29

12. That it is clear from the above stated facts, that the petitioner has an arms license being license no 01/2020 and holds firearm of 30.06 (9mm) bore rifle. The petitioner had written a request letter (other than the specified format) to Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar for enhancement of bullets quota and additional arms/license for sports practice. However, Superintendent of Police recommended for enhancement of bullet quota but the petitioner has no such type of firearms for which enhanced quantity of ammunition is allowed for the aspiring shooter. Since, enhanced quota is permissible for Rifle of .22 LR (upto 8 mm) Category. Therefore it is obvious that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought in the present writ. Hence the same may be dismissed with quantified cost.”

¶30

Looking to the specific averments made in the counter affidavit dated 14.03.2023 and the present facts and circumstances, this Court holds that the petitioner is not entitled to get relief as prayed for in the instant writ application.

¶31

Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed.

¶32

Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶33

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶34

12^th February 2026 Amit Uploaded on 14/03/2026

¶35

Amit Kumar Singh v. District Magistrate Collectorate Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Singh v. District Magistrate Collectorate Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radha Mohan Sharma Vs Education

Shashi Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Industries

Ms Rahul Distributors through Its Proprietor Sri Naresh Kumar Rastogi Vs State of Jharkhand

Poonam Kumari Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Kauleshwar Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand