Gopal Jee Pandey vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG 3 for the State.

Pursuant to order dated 05.11.2019, the District Magistrate, Rohtas is present.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case where initially an order rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence had been set aside by the Court and the matter remanded to the District Magistrate, Rohtas for taking fresh action, when again an order rejecting the claim was passed on some grounds, which were beyond the capacity of the petitioner to be fulfilled, inasmuch as, there being no designated person or institute from where a training certificate with regard to having a working knowledge of operating of firearm could be obtained, the Court had required the presence of the District Magistrate, Rohtas to understand as to how the matter is being considered by him so that there is no violation of any provision of the Arms Act and Rules and also there is harmonious balance with the request of a citizen for arms licence which is required to be considered objectively.

Having interacted with the District Magistrate, Rohtas and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the District Magistrate, Rohtas very fairly submitted that there are some issues, both with regard to the statutory provisions which are mandatory in nature and also with regard to the discretion given under the Act and Rules to him to consider such request, which requires to be addressed on a case to case basis keeping in mind that subjectivity in the matter is minimised. He further submitted that if the petitioner is able to meet the statutory requirement including that of having knowledge in the working of firearm, he may submit an application to him, which shall be considered, in accordance with law.

The Court finds that the stand taken by the District Magistrate, Rohtas appears to be fair and reasonable. The statute having vested power on him, ultimately he has to exercise his authority for which he is responsible and, thus, without being fully satisfied, he cannot be expected to pass an order. Thus, the stand taken by him for considering the application of the petitioner, once the requirement of submitting a certificate is fulfilled, on general and broad principles/parameters and objectively, to the extent possible, the Court finds that nothing further remains in the present matter.

The Court would only indicate that in terms of Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016 as the firearm left by his deceased uncle was to be inherited by him, the authorities would be mindful of such provision. The Court would also indicate that the petitioner in view of the provisions in force may apply in the format required under Rule 11 of the Arms Rules, 2016.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed off in light of the discussions made hereinabove.

Personal appearance of the District Magistrate, Rohtas stands dispensed with.