Rajeev Nandan Pandey @ Rajib Nandan Pandey Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Rajeev Nandan Pandey @ Rajib Nandan Pandey Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ application allowed; impugned Memo No. 155/Arms Patna dated 19.06.2023 quashed; District Magistrate, Banka directed to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh in accordance with the Arms Act and Rules and this Court's earlier judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 14175 of 2018, within two months, after hearing the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order of the District Magistrate, Banka (Memo No. 155/Arms Patna, dated 19.06.2023, Arms Case No. 16/201/2022-23) rejecting addition of an arms licence to the petitioner's existing N.P. Bore Rifle Licence (bearing 16-5/2001) could be sustained.

Court's answer

The District Magistrate's consideration — that because people belonging to Tatwa Caste, Mandal Caste and Santhal Scheduled Tribes (weaker sections) reside in the village, a separate pistol licence was not required for peace and tranquility — is perverse, and the impugned order cannot be sustained.

Ratio / Principle

The writ application is allowed and the impugned order (Memo No. 155/Arms Patna, dated 19.06.2023, Arms Case No. 16/201/2022-23) is quashed, with a direction to the District Magistrate, Banka to consider the petitioner's application afresh in accordance with the Arms Act and Rules and the judgment earlier passed in the petitioner's favour in C.W.J.C. No. 14175 of 2018, within two months of receipt/production/communication of the order's copy, after hearing the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Sandeep Kumar, J) — Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2574 of 2024 (decided 28-02-2024). Writ allowed. The District Magistrate, Banka's order in Memo No. 155/Arms Patna, dated 19.06.2023 (Arms Case No. 16/201/2022-23), rejecting addition of an arms licence to the petitioner's existing N.P. Bore Rifle Licence bearing 16-5/2001, was quashed as unsustainable: the DM's stated ground — that persons of Tatwa Caste, Mandal Caste and Santhal Scheduled Tribes (weaker sections) residing in the village made a separate pistol licence unnecessary for the village's peace and tranquility — was held by the Court to be a perverse consideration. The DM was directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with the Arms Act and Rules and the judgment earlier passed in the petitioner's favour in C.W.J.C. No. 14175 of 2018, within two months of receipt/production/communication of the order, after hearing the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner had also invoked Rule 18 of the rules (addition to be done within seven days) and argued against fresh police verification for an existing licence-holder; the Court's recorded findings rest on the perversity point and the quashing direction.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2574 of 2024

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

Rajeev Nandan Pandey @ Rajib Nandan Pandey S/o Aswani Kumar Pandey, resident of Village-Dahiya, P.S.-Bounsi, District-Banka.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar.

The District Magistrate, Banka.

The Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger.

The Additional District Magistrate, Banka.

The District Arms Magistrate, Banka.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Banka.

The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Banka.

The Superintendent of Police, Banka.

... ... Respondent/s

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manisha Pandey For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Advocate 13

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

2 28-02-2024

This is an application for setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 155/Arms Patna, dated 19.06.2023 passed in Arms Case No. 16/201/2022-23 of the District Magistrate, Banka by which the application for addition of arms license in existing N.P. Bore Rifle License bearing 16-5/2001 has been rejected.

2 . By the order dated 20.02.2022, the application for addition in existing arms license holding a pistol/revolver has been rejected. The rejection is on a number of ground.

3 . The learned counsel for the petitioner has

Patna High Court CWJC No.2574 of 2024(2) dt.28-02-2024 2/3

assailed the rejection and has submitted that there is no complain of misuse of arms which he holds and as per Rule 18 of the rules, the addition has to be done within seven days.

4 . He also submits that once he has been granted arms license earlier, there is no need of police verification afresh if he wants another arms license. He also submits that the finding of the District Magistrate that people belonging to Tatwa Caste, Mandal Caste and Santhal Scheduled Tribes are staying in the village who belong to weaker sections of the society and, therefore, to protect the peace and tranquility of the village, the separate license for pistol is not required to be given to the petitioner is illegal.

5 . In my opinion, this kind of consideration is perverse and the impugned order cannot be sustained.

6 . This application is allowed and the Memo No. 155/Arms Patna, dated 19.06.2023 passed in Arms Case No. 16/201/2022-23 of the District Magistrate, Banka is hereby quashed with a direction to the District Magistrate to consider the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with the Arms Act and Rules and the judgment passed in favour of the petitioner by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14175 of 2018.

7 . The consideration must be done within two

Patna High Court CWJC No.2574 of 2024(2) dt.28-02-2024 3/3

months from the date of receipt/production/communication of a

copy of this order after hearing the petitioner.

8 . This application stands allowed.

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

Shishir /-

U