Disposed¶29

The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Md. Naiyar Alam

Patna HC4 Apr 2024L.P.A/323/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arms license grant/refusal reconsideration under the 2016 Rules, Rule 12 SubRule (3)(a); disposal of a batch of writ petitions; cognate appeal LPA No. 758 of 2018 (The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Deepak Kumar, disposing CWJC No. 21473 of 2011); security-threat perception in police report discussed within the quoted Deepak Kumar order; direction for fresh consideration with due notice; Purnea Division officials; respondent non-appearance; Patna High Court; appeal disposed 04-04-2024.

What did the court decide?

On the very same terms as the Deepak Kumar disposal, a direction to consider the issue in accordance with the directions therein, if it has already not been considered, also with due notice to the respondent herein; the order records the addressee as 'the District Magistrate, Patna'. ¶29

The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Md. Naiyar Alam — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the present appeal, arising from the impugned disposal of a batch of writ petitions concerning the respondent, should be disposed of on the same terms as the cognate appeal in The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Deepak Kumar (LPA No. 758 of 2018), with consideration of the license question in accordance with the directions therein and the 2016 Rules.

¶28

Court's answer

The appeal stands disposed of on the very same terms as the Division Bench disposal in The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Deepak Kumar (LPA No. 758 of 2018), with a direction to consider the issue in accordance with the directions therein, if it has already not been considered, also with due notice to the respondent herein.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, Letters Patent Appeal No.323 of 2019 (arising in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22071 of 2011); coram the Chief Justice (K. Vinod Chandran) and Harish Kumar J.; oral order per the Chief Justice; decided 04-04-2024. Appellants: the State of Bihar, the Commissioner, Purnea Division, the District Magistrate, Purnea and the District Arms Officer, Purnea; respondent: Md. Naiyar Alam, who did not appear despite valid service of notice. The appeal lay against the impugned order disposing of a batch of writ petitions. Pointing to the Division Bench order dated 21.01.2019 in The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Deepak Kumar (LPA No. 758 of 2018) - by which the State's appeal in the cognate writ petition CWJC No. 21473 of 2011 was disposed of, the learned Single Judge's judgment being modified subject to his direction to consider grant of license in accordance with the 2016 Rules (SubRule (3)(a) of Rule 12) - this Court disposed of the present appeal on the very same terms, directing consideration of the issue in accordance with the directions therein, if not already considered, with due notice to the respondent.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.323 of 2019 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22071 of 2011

¶3

======================================================

¶4

The State of Bihar and Ors Bihar

¶5

The Commissioner Purnea Division, District-Purnea

¶6

The District Magistrate Purnea

¶7

District Arms Officer Purnea

¶8

... ... Appellant/s

¶9

Versus

¶10

Md. Naiyar Alam S/o Haji Md. Abbas R/o Village-Surigaon, P.O. and P.S. Baisi, District-Purnea

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance :

¶13

For the Appellant/s : Mr.Saroj Kumar Sharma ( AC To AAAG-3) For the Respondent/s : Mr. ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶15

and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶16

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶17

7 04-04-2024

¶18

A batch of writ petitions was disposed of by the

¶19

impugned order. Notices were issued to the respondent which has been validly served, but there is no appearance.

¶20

Learned Government Advocate points out that in one of the writ petitions; CWJC No. 21473 of 2011, the State had taken it up in appeal, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in order dated 21.01.2019 in The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Deepak Kumar (LPA No. 758 of 2018),

¶21

We extract the last two paragraphs of the aforesaid

¶22

judgment:-

¶23

Patna High Court L.P.A No.323 of 2019(7) dt.04-04-2024 2/3

¶24

“The order of the District Magistrate, as communicated, does not indicate the existence of any valid reason, but, at the same time, the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner indicates that there was no mention of any specific security threat or danger to the appellant in the police report. Such a ground, in our opinion, would be contrary to the intent of grant of license in as much as it is not necessary that a person should have an actual threat or imminent threat perception, but it would suffice if the applicant is able to persuade the authority to take into consideration the nature of his trade, profession and calling for the purpose of grant of license which situation has now been taken care of under SubRule (3)(a) of Rule 12 of the 2016 Rules. In this view of the matter, the question of grant or refusal of license will have to be revisited by the licensing authority where the licensing authority will have the power to make an assessment as per the aforesaid Rules, keeping in view the police report or such other factors which may be necessary for the said purpose. The Advocate General is, therefore, right in his submission to the extent that there cannot be an omnibus declaration in respect of a reason which can also possibly form part of the refusal or grant of license, namely the possibility or probability of any threat or imminent danger to the life or property of an individual. Such factors, in our opinion, are

¶25

Patna High Court L.P.A No.323 of 2019(7) dt.04-04-2024 3/3

¶26

admissible factors, especially in the light of the 2016 Rules which now take care of the situation.

¶27

Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, to that extent, would stand modified, subject to the direction of the learned Single Judge to consider the grant of license to the respondent-petitioner in accordance with the 2016 Rules and take a fresh decision in the matter within the time period given therein.”

¶28

The above appeal also stands disposed on the very same terms and there shall be a direction to the respondentpetitioner, the District Magistrate, Patna to consider the issue in accordance with the directions therein, if it has already not been considered also with due notice to the respondent herein.

¶29

The appeal stands disposed of.

¶30

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

¶31

( Harish Kumar, J)

¶32

Anushka/-

¶33

The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Md. Naiyar Alam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Md. Naiyar Alam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Shankar Singh @ Shankar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Renu Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Chandra Bibha Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Bihar

M/s Krishna Trading Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Nayyar Azam Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjan Engicon Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Bihar