Allowed

Binod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC4 Jan 2016CWJC/5947/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the cancellation of his arms licence due to absence of threat evidence in SP's recommendation. Relying on prior precedents, the court held lack of threat evidence invalid for licence refusal. The impugned orders were quashed, and the matter remitted for a fresh decision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Both impugned orders quashed and set aside. Matter remitted to licensing authority for a fresh decision within three months.

Binod Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5947 of 2014

¶2

====================================================== Binod Kumar Son Of Late Raghunandan Singh Resident Of Village Dumrawan P.S. Asthawan, District Nalanda .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Department Of Home, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Nalanda 4. The District Arms Magistrate, Nalanda .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Lovekush Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. A.K. Jha, A.C. to A.A.G. 13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER

¶3

2 04-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure 4 dated 27.01.2010 issued by the District Arms Magistrate, Nalanda that, vide order passed by the District Magistrate, his application for grant of licence has been cancelled on the ground that the Superintendent of Police though has recommended the case of the petitioner but has not stated that there is any threat upon the petitioner. The petitioner preferred appeal no.31/10 but that has also been dismissed vide Annexure 5 by the Commissioner, Patna.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this decision of the licensing authority as disclosed in the Annexure 4 is in teeth of law laid down of this Court rendered in Manish

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.5947 of 2014 (2) dt.04-01-2016

¶6

2 / 2

¶7

Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar and other analogous cases [2015(4)

¶8

PLJR 212 ] as lack of evidence regarding threat perception cannot form a ground for refusal of licence under Section 14 of the Arms

¶9

Act, 1959.

¶10

As a result, this writ petition succeeds in terms thereof. Both the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the licensing authority for taking a fresh decision in accordance with law within a period of three months

¶11

from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶12

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)

¶13

Sanjay-II/-

¶14

Binod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar

Sunil Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Sudama Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar

Vinod Kumar Choubey Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Uma Shankar Singh Yadav @ Uma Singh @ Uma Shankar Singh and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Anr.

Rohini Ranjana Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.