4.
Introduction
On July 14, 2022, the High Court of
Judicature at Patna delivered an important judgment in the Civil Writ
Jurisdiction Case No. 10784 of 2021, filed by Vijay Kumar Singh against the
State of Bihar and other respondents. The petitioner sought the quashing of an
order dated March 13, 2020, passed by the District Magistrate of Patna in Arms
Case No. 9-91/2019, which rejected his application for an arms license.
Background of the Case
Vijay Kumar Singh, an approved and
registered valuer empanelled with various nationalized banks, applied for an
arms license. His profession required him to travel extensively across the
state for property and asset valuation. Due to the nature of his work, he
claimed to face threats to his life and property, thus justifying his
application for an arms license.
Reports dated December 9, 2019, from
the SHO of Sri Krishnapuri Police Station, and December 15, 2019, from the
Sub-Inspector of Police, Shastri Nagar Police Station, both acknowledged the
petitioner's need for an arms license based on the security risks associated
with his profession. However, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Secretariat
Patna, did not find any real threat perception, which influenced the District
Magistrate’s decision to reject the application on the grounds of insufficient
threat perception.
Relevant Legal Provisions
The petitioner’s application was
primarily assessed under Rule 12(3)(a) of the Arms Rules, 2016, which states:
“Any person who by the very nature of
his business, profession, job or otherwise has genuine requirement to protect
his life and/or property.”
The petitioner's counsel argued that
the licensing authority did not properly consider the nature of his profession
as required under this provision. Furthermore, previous judgments were cited to
support the claim that actual threat perception is not a mandatory criterion
for granting an arms license.
Cited Judgments and
Precedents
The petitioner’s counsel referred to
the following cases:
·
Amrendra Kumar Singh v. State of
Bihar & Ors. (2008) - This case established that the
presence of a direct threat is not necessary for granting an arms license.
·
Manish Kumar & Others v. State of
Bihar & Ors. (2015) - It was clarified that lack of
evidence regarding a threat does not necessarily make an applicant unfit for an
arms license under Section 14(1)(b)(i)(3) of the Arms Act.
·
State of Bihar & Ors. v. Deepak
Kumar (2019) - The Division Bench ruled that the
absence of a specific security threat cannot be a sole ground for rejection of
an application. The licensing authority must consider the nature of the
applicant’s trade or profession under Rule 12(3)(a) of the Arms Rules, 2016.
Court's Analysis and
Decision
Justice Mohit Kumar Shah noted that
the District Magistrate of Patna did not adequately consider the petitioner’s
professional circumstances and the implications of Rule 12(3)(a). The judgment
acknowledged the petitioner’s need to travel across the state as part of his
profession, which could justify the necessity for an arms license even without
an immediate threat perception.
The Court emphasized that the
licensing authority is obligated to consider the nature of the applicant’s
trade, profession, or occupation while assessing applications under the Arms
Rules, 2016. The case was thus remanded to the District Magistrate for reconsideration,
with instructions to provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and to
make a fresh decision within twelve weeks, considering the relevant legal
provisions and police reports.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the
importance of a nuanced approach to evaluating arms license applications. It
emphasizes that security concerns linked to a person’s profession can be a
valid reason for the issuance of an arms license under the Arms Rules, 2016.
The case also serves as a reminder for authorities to properly assess each
application, not just based on imminent threats but also considering broader
professional safety requirements.
MTUjMTA3ODQjMjAyMSMxI04=-3chfp6vyJgY=
