Mr. Kamla Pd. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, raises two questions. It is contended that one of the grounds for rejection is that the petitioner does not have any threat upon his life or property which as per the petitioner, is contrary to the stand taken for rejection to the second ground. The second ground for rejection of the application is that the petitioner, since is already having licence for N.P. Bore rifle, thus, there is no occasion for issuing licence for N.P. Bore pistol/revolver specially since the Licensing Authority is satisfied that there is no threat upon the petitioner. It is submitted that Section 3(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 lays down in clear terms that a person can carry at any time maximum of three firearms, therefore, the fact that the petitioner is already having a licence for N.P. Bore Rifle cannot form a ground for refusal of application for another licence for pistol/revolver as the same does not form a ground for refusal under Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 also. That apart this Court has already held in Manish Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar and other analogous cases [AIR 2016 Patna 9] that lack of specific evidence regarding any threat perception cannot form a ground for rejection of application for grant of arms licence to the petitioner.
