Sitaram Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sahvind Kumar Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Standing Counsel (04) ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶15

2 08-04-2026

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶17

counsel for the Respondent State.

¶18

The present petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):-

¶19

“i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction (s) in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the order passed by the respondent District Magistrate Patna vide his Memorandum 2718 date 16/12/2024 (as contained in Annexure-5 to this writ application) whereby and whereunder the respondent District Magistrate has rejected the grievances of the petitioner (as contained in Annexure-5.)

¶20

ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) in the nature of writ of Mandamus or direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner to issue

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.17087 of 2025(2) dt.08-04-2026 2/3

¶22

licence of Arms of 12 Bore DBBL Gun and 65 Bore M.P. Bore Rig to the petitioner for projection of their lives and properties. Which have been already possessed the petitioner's father Late Ram Naresh Singh.

¶23

iii. For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioners are termed to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because the petitioners did not have the training certificates at the time when such requirement was placed before these petitioners for obtaining grant/transfer of Arms license, the application for grant of Arms License in respect of the petitioners has been rejected vide Memo No. 2718 dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure-5).

¶25

Now, since such training certificates are available, which are appended with Annexure 6/1 and 6/2 of the writ petition, the order passed by the District Magistrate, Patna, vide Memo No. 2718 dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure-5) rejecting the claim of Arms License, which admittedly, has been passed in absence of such certificate, is therefore, set aside.

¶26

Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Patna is directed to consider the applications, which would be filed by these petitioners separately for grant/transfer of license along

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.17087 of 2025(2) dt.08-04-2026 3/3

¶28

with the training certificates, which is said to have been obtained by them after the impugned decision is said to have been passed by the Respondent concerned.

¶29

The petitioners are, accordingly, directed to file their fresh representations separately/individually before the District Magistrate, Patna for grant/transfer of license along with the material documents required for adjudication withing a period of four weeks from today.

¶30

On applications being filed by these petitioners individually, along with the material documents like training certificates and a copy of this order, it is expected that the District Magistrate, Patna shall reconsider the matter afresh within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation, in accordance with law.

¶31

Needless to say that, if required, a police report may also be obtained.

¶32

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

(Ajit Kumar, J)

¶34

perwez

¶35

U

Sitaram Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramila Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Riya Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Dr. Deo Prakash and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Birendra Yadav Vs The State of Bihar