Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court recently delivered a strong judgment condemning the inordinate delay and arbitrary conduct of the District Magistrate, Rohtas, in processing a citizen’s arms licence application. The case revolved around the petitioner’s prolonged attempt—since 2001—to obtain a licence for a firearm for self-defense, which was continuously rejected due to shifting regulatory interpretations and bureaucratic inaction.

The petitioner first applied for a firearm licence in 2001, submitting necessary documents and receiving a favorable police report. However, the application was rejected in 2006 for not submitting “threat perception” evidence. After a legal battle and multiple appeals—including an order from the High Court in 2015 directing a fresh decision—the District Magistrate again rejected the application in 2018.

This time, the rejection was based on a new reason: the petitioner had not submitted a training certificate required under Rule 10(1) of the Arms Rules, 2016, which had come into force after his original application. The petitioner challenged this rejection, arguing it was unreasonable to expect compliance with a rule that was not in existence at the time of his original application—and that, even after the rules came into force, no training facility or mechanism had been set up by the government to issue the required certificate (Form S-1).

The High Court noted that the Central Government had indeed issued a clarification allowing states to set up temporary training arrangements with state police or CAPF units, but the Bihar government had failed to act upon it. Moreover, no date for commencement of such training had been notified by the Central Government as required under Rule 10(3).

Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh came down heavily on the District Magistrate for flouting court orders, delaying justice for over four years, and rejecting the petitioner’s application for non-compliance with a rule that was impossible to meet.

The Court directed:

• The District Magistrate must personally meet the petitioner, arrange necessary training, and not reject the application unless the petitioner refuses to cooperate.
• The Home Department of Bihar must issue orders allowing such training as per the central guidelines.
• The Additional Chief Secretary must examine the dereliction of duty and consider action against the officers involved.
• A cost of ₹10,000 was imposed on the District Magistrate to be paid to the petitioner.

The Court also observed that such conduct erodes public faith in the system and warned officials to discharge duties lawfully and diligently.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment is a major step in holding administrative authorities accountable for delays and non-compliance with court directions. It highlights several systemic flaws:

• State machinery cannot cite impractical or unimplemented rules to deny citizens their rights.
• Government officers are expected to act on clarifications issued by higher authorities—especially when public rights are at stake.
• Citizens cannot be punished for bureaucratic inaction or regulatory vacuum.

It also protects the rights of applicants who were already in the process of seeking arms licences before the 2016 Rules came into effect, ensuring transitional justice. The ruling sends a clear message to all District Magistrates and licensing authorities to act fairly, follow judicial orders, and avoid arbitrary rejections.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

• Whether the petitioner’s application could be rejected for not submitting a training certificate under Rule 10(1) of the Arms Rules, 2016?
  • No. The rule requires the Central Government to notify the effective date and training process. Since no such notification was made and training mechanisms were absent, it was impossible for the petitioner to comply.
• Was the petitioner denied fair opportunity to comply with the rules?
  • Yes. The petitioner received notice only four days before rejection. The Court held it unreasonable to expect compliance in such short time with no facilities in place.
• Did the licensing authority (District Magistrate) violate the earlier court order?
  • Yes. The 2015 High Court order directed a decision within two months. The authority delayed it for over three years without explanation.
• Could the authority apply a rule retroactively to an application made before the rule came into force?
  • No. The Court held that such application of law was unjust and arbitrary, especially in absence of enabling mechanisms.
• What directions did the Court issue for remedy and future compliance?
  • The Court outlined a detailed process, ensuring petitioner receives fair chance for training and certificate, while placing duty on the State to facilitate compliance with Rule 10(1).

Judgments Referred by Parties

• None specifically mentioned by citation.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• The Court relied on its own previous order in CWJC No. 14628 of 2013 dated 28.09.2015.
• Central Government Clarification Letter dated 07.07.2017 under Arms Rules, 2016.

Case Title

Rameshwar Nath Mishra v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number

CWJC No. 22187 of 2019

Citation(s)

2021(1)PLJR 23

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh

Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For

• For the Petitioner: Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, Ms. Aditi Hansaria
• For the Respondents (State): Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad (SC8), Mr. Anil Kumar (A.C. to SC8)

Link to Judgment

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/vieworder/MTUjMjIxODcjMjAxOSM0I04=-alYJYTAyVmM=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.