IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3231 of 2024 ====================================================== Brij Nandan Singh @ Braj Nandan Singh s/o Ram Tapasya Singh, Resid. of village-Bararhi, P.O.-Bhadwar, P.S. Bagengola, District-Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Divisional Commissioner Patna Division, Patna. 3. The Collector of District Buxar, District-Buxar. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Buxar, District-Buxar. 5. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Dumraon, District-Buxar. 6. The S.H.O. Bagengola Police Station, District-Buxar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Mohan Kumar Singh, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel 6 Mr. AC to SC-6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-06-2026 Heard the parties. 2. The present writ application has been filed for the grant of following reliefs: “(i). For the issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order Passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Resp. No.2 in Arms Appeal case no. 38/2021, Dt. 20.06.2023 vide Annex. 6 whereby and whereunder he has affirmed the order Passed by the Collector of Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 2/19 the District Buxar, Resp. No. 3 in Arms Case No. 192/2011 Dt. 25.11.2019 vide Annex.5. (ii). For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing /commanding the Resp. No. 3 for grant of licence of Rifle to the Petitioner who is Licensing authority U/S 13 of the Arms Act. (iii) For grant of any other relief or reliefs for which the Petitioner is entitled to in accordance with law and facts of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for grant of a rifle licence in the prescribed form before the Arms Magistrate, Buxar, on the grounds of personal necessity and protection of his life and property. Upon receipt of the application, an enquiry was conducted through the concerned authorities. The Officer-in-Charge, Bagengola Police Station, after verification, recommended the petitioner's case for grant of licence. The recommendation was successively endorsed through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dumraon, and the Superintendent of Police, Buxar, and thereafter placed before the District Magistrate, Buxar for consideration. A copy of the original application has been brought on record as Annexure-1. Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 3/19 4. It is submitted that despite the favourable police verification and recommendation, the District Magistrate, Buxar, by order dated 23.02.2016 passed in Arms Case No. 192 of 2011, rejected the petitioner's application solely on the ground that his annual income was Rs. 63,000/- and, therefore, he was allegedly not competent to hold an arms licence. The said order has been annexed as Annexure-2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Arms Appeal No. 164 of 2016 before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna. The appellate authority, upon consideration of the matter, remanded the case to the District Magistrate for fresh consideration in light of the judgment of this Court where the court has given guidelines and provisions of law for grant of Arms License u/s 13 & 14 of the Arms Act which has been reported in 2015 (4) PLJR 212 and directed verification of the petitioner's antecedents and character through the local police authorities. 5. It is further submitted that pursuant to the remand, fresh reports were called for from the Superintendent of Police, Buxar, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dumraon, and Bagengola Police Station. Upon verification, the police authorities submitted their report vide Letter No. 3454 dated 19.08.2019, which has been annexed as Annexure-4. Learned counsel submits Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 4/19 that the said verification report found no criminal antecedent against the petitioner and did not disclose any adverse material regarding his character or conduct. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the police report also recorded that the petitioner's grandfather, Late Jugli Singh, had been killed by Naxalites in the year 1987 and that one Vishwanath Paswan, a servant of the petitioner's family, was similarly killed by Naxalites in connection with Bagengola P.S. Case No. 39 of 2000 dated 31.12.2000 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, these circumstances demonstrated a continuing atmosphere of threat and insecurity faced by his family. The report further recorded that the petitioner's livelihood was based on agriculture and that his annual income was approximately Rs. 4,00,000/-. Notwithstanding the aforesaid materials, the District Magistrate, Buxar, once again rejected the petitioner's application by order dated 25.11.2019 passed in Arms Case No. 192 of 2011, holding, inter alia, that the police authorities had merely forwarded the report without specifically recording any threat perception and recommending for grant of licence. The said order has been annexed as Annexure-5. Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 5/19 7. Learned counsel further submits that the second order of rejection was passed in complete disregard of the remand directions issued by the appellate authority and without proper consideration of the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to therein. According to the petitioner, the reason for rejecting the application for grant of licence is unknown to law and is arbitrary. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Arms Appeal No. 38 of 2021 before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna. It is contended that the appellate authority failed to independently examine the legality of the order passed by the District Magistrate and, by order dated 20.06.2023, merely affirmed the rejection without addressing the grounds raised by the petitioner. The appellate order has been brought on record as Annexure-6. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that both the impugned orders dated 25.11.2019 and 20.06.2023 are arbitrary, mechanical and contrary to the scheme of Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. It is submitted that the petitioner possesses a clean antecedent, no criminal case is pending against him, and the competent police authorities have never reported any adverse material disentitling him from obtaining an arms licence. The rejection, therefore, is stated to be based on considerations Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 6/19 extraneous to the statutory grounds contemplated under the Arms Act and is liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3, the District Magistrate, Buxar, submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and the impugned orders passed by the licensing authority as well as the appellate authority are fully justified in law. Learned counsel submits that upon receipt of the petitioner's application for grant of a rifle licence, reports were called for from the police authorities. It is contended that the application was merely forwarded by the Officer-in-Charge, Bagengola Police Station, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dumraon and the Superintendent of Police, Buxar vide Letter No. 739/Go dated 24.02.2015, and the same was never specifically recommended for grant of licence. A copy of the said report has been brought on record as Annexure R-3/1 to the counter affidavit. 10. It is further submitted that the petitioner's application was initially rejected by the District Magistrate, Buxar vide order dated 23.02.2016 passed in Arms Case No. 192 of 2011. Though the matter was subsequently remanded by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna for fresh consideration in light of the law laid down by this Court under Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 7/19 the remand did not create any vested right in favour of the petitioner for grant of licence. 11. Learned counsel submits that after remand, fresh reports were called for from the Superintendent of Police, Buxar, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dumraon and the Officer-in- Charge, Bagengola Police Station, which were submitted vide Letter No. 3606/Go dated 01.09.2019. The said report has been annexed as Annexure R-3/2 to the counter affidavit. Referring to the police verification report, learned counsel submits that no material was found indicating any threat perception to the petitioner. It is pointed out that the report specifically recorded that the petitioner was not on the hit list of any extremist organisation, fundamentalist organisation or notorious criminal group and that no criminal incident had occurred with the petitioner. According to the respondents, the relevant findings in the report were as follows: (i) The petitioner was not on the hit list of extremists; (ii) The petitioner was not on the hit list of any fundamentalist organisation; (iii) The petitioner was not on the hit list of any notorious criminal; and Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 8/19 (iv) No criminal incident had taken place with the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid materials, the District Magistrate, Buxar considered the matter afresh and passed a reasoned order dated 25.11.2019 in Arms Case No. 192 of 2011 rejecting the petitioner's claim. 12. Learned counsel submits that the licensing authority found that no specific recommendation for grant of licence had been made and also there was absence of any threat perception and, therefore, exercised its statutory discretion under Section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959 to refuse grant of licence. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner thereafter preferred Arms Appeal No. 38 of 2021 before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna. Upon consideration of the records and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the appellate authority affirmed the findings recorded by the District Magistrate and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 20.06.2023. 13. Learned counsel accordingly contends that both the licensing authority and the appellate authority have passed reasoned and well-considered orders on the basis of the materials available on record. It is submitted that the petitioner failed to Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 9/19 establish any threat perception or any other circumstance warranting grant of an arms licence and, therefore, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition, according to the respondents, is liable to be dismissed. 14. Before proceeding to examine the validity of the impugned orders, it would be apposite to notice the scheme of Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. For ready reference, Section 14 of the Arms Act is quoted hereinbelow: “14. Refusal of licences.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant- (a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition; (b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,- (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe- (1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition; or (2) to be of unsound mind; or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 10/19 (ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. (2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property. (3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.” While Section 13 provides for consideration of an application for grant of an arms licence, Section 14 circumscribes the power of the licensing authority to refuse such licence. The statutory scheme leaves little room for doubt that refusal of an arms licence cannot be founded upon subjective satisfactions or extraneous considerations. The discretion vested in the licensing authority is undoubtedly wide, but it is not unbridled and the grounds of rejection of license have explicitly been given in the Act. Such discretion must be exercised on relevant considerations and within the four corners of the statute. Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 11/19 15. This Court finds that the entire case of the respondents rests on the premise that the police verification report did not disclose any specific threat perception to the petitioner. Such discretion must be exercised on relevant considerations and within the four corners of the statute. Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 11/19 15. This Court finds that the entire case of the respondents rests on the premise that the police verification report did not disclose any specific threat perception to the petitioner. Relevant portion of the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the District Magistrate is reproduced here for ready reference: “vfHkys[k ij miyC/k dkxtkrksa ,oa izkIr iqfyl izfrosnu ds voyksduksijkar ik;k x;k fd iqfyl v/kh{kd] cDlj ds i=kad 3606] fnukad 01-09-2019 ds lkFk Fkkuk/;{k cxsu xksyk Fkkuk] cDlj dk izfrosnu layXu gS ftlesa izfrosfnr fd;k x;k gS fd tkWap ds dze esa ik;k x;k gS fd vkosnd ds ckck tqxqyh flag] is0& Lo0 nsoy flag] dks uDlykbZV } kjk o’kZ 1987 esa Hknoj cjk<+h eksM+ ij xksyh ekjdj gR;k dj nh xbZ Fkh rFkk buds vkneh fo”oukFk ikloku is0 Lo0 xjtq ikloku dks uDlykbZV }kjk o’kZ 2000 esa xzke cjk<+h esa xksyh ekjdj gR;k dj fn;k x;k FkkA bl laca/k esa cxsu xksyk Fkkuk dk.M la0&39@2000] fnukad 31-12-2000 /kkjk 302@34 Hkk0 n0 fo0 ntZ gqvk FkkA vkosnd dk iwoZo`r ,oa orZeku vkpj.k vPNk crk;k x;k gSA vkosnd ,oa mlds ifjokj ds vU; lnL; dh vkijkf/kd i`’BHkwfe ugha ik;k x;k gSA vkosnd ,oa mlds ifjokj ds fdlh Hkh lnL; dks fdlh O;fDr vijk/kh ,oa uDly xzqi ls orZeku esa /kedh ugh feyk gSA vkosnd ,oa mlds ifjokj dh ftfodksiktZu [ksrh gSA vkosnd dh okf’kZd vk; [ksrh ls 4 ¼pkj½ yk[k :i;s crk;k x;k gSA Fkkuk/;{k] cxsu xksyk ds mDr izfrosnu dks vuqe.My iqfyl inkf/kdkjh } kjk flQZ vxzlkfjr fd;k x;k gSA mDr izfrosnu dks iqfyl v/kh{kd cDlj }kjk Hkh flQZ vxzsrj dkjZokbZ gsrq vxzlkfjr fd;k x;k gSA iqfyl v/kh{kd] cDlj@ vuqe.My iqfyl inkf/kdkjh] cDlj@ Fkkuk/;{k cxsu xksyk@ } kjk vius mDr izfrosnu esa vkosnd dks “kL= vuqKfIr iznku djus gsrq vuq”kalk ugha fd;k x;k gSA iqfyl izfrosnu esa izfrosfnr dh xbZ ?kVuk djhc 20 o’kZ ,oa mlls vf/kd le; dh gS ,oa orZeku le; esa fdlh Hkh O;fDRk@vijk/kh@uDly xzqi ls /kedh ugha feyus dh ckr Hkh Fkkuk/;{k cxsu xksyk Fkkuk }kjk izfrosfnr fd;k x;k gSA mDRk izfrosnuksa esa orZeku esa vkosnd ds Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 12/19 tku&eky dh lqj{kk ds laca/k esa dksbZ fof”k’V dkj.k dk mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gSA ” [Emphasis Supplied] The District Magistrate, while rejecting the application on 25.11.2019, repeatedly emphasized the absence of any express threat perception in the police report and treated the same as a decisive circumstance against the petitioner. The appellate authority also proceeded on substantially the same reasoning while affirming the order of rejection. The question which therefore arises for consideration is whether absence of a specific threat perception can, by itself, constitute a valid ground for refusal of an arms licence under the Arms Act. The relevant paragraphs of judgment dated 24.04.2026 passed in CWJC No. 3229 of 2024 which has been relied upon by the petitioner is quoted herein: “ 15……...The Arms Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “2016 Rules”) came into force and has been enforced prescribing the guidelines which are to be followed by the licensing authority while proceeding to consider grant or refusal of licence. Rule 12 of 2016 Rules along with sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (3) are relevant for the purpose of the present case inasmuch as the present case relates to grant of licence for permissible arms and ammunition specified in Category- 3 of Schedule- 1 of the said Rules. The same is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 13/19 “12. Obligations of licensing authority in certain cases. -(1) Save as otherwise provided in the Act, every licensing authority granting a licence in Form III to an individual for the restricted or permissible arms or ammunition as specified in category 1(b) and 1(c) or category III respectively in Schedule I, shall have due regard to the application of norms specified in sub-rules (2) and (3). (3) For grant of a licence for the permissible arms or ammunition specified in category III in Schedule I, and without prejudice to the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub- section (3) of section 13, the licensing authority, based on the police report and on his own assessment, may consider the applications of- (a) any person who by the very nature of his business, profession, job or otherwise has genuine requirement to protect his life and/or property; or (b) any dedicated sports person being active member for the last two years, of a shooting club or a rifle association, licensed under these rules and who wants to pursue sport shooting for target practice in a structured learning process; оr (c) any person in service or having served in the Defence Forces, Central Armed Police Forces or the State Police Force and has genuine requirement to protect his life and/or property” 16. Under the third schedule along with the relevant format meant for grant of license also indicates that apart from the conditions for grant of license under the Act and the Rules, the information given in the said forms have to be considered. The Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 14/19 relevant form requires an applicant to clearly mention the purpose for which the license is required. 17. As per sub rule 3(a) of Rule 12 extracted hereinabove the licensing authority based on police report and on his own assessment may consider an application of a person who by the very nature of his business, profession, job or otherwise has genuine requirement to protect his life and / or property. Thus, it is clear that while deciding the application for grant of licence the licensing authority apart from the conditions mentioned in Section 13 & 14 of the Arms Act has to consider the provisions of Rule 12(3)(a) also where the very purpose of the acquisition of arms has to be assessed by the licensing authority on the basis of a police report or on his own assessment.” 16. The Arms Act nowhere provides that an applicant must establish the existence of an imminent threat to his life or property as a condition precedent for consideration of his application. Equally, Section 14 does not contemplate refusal of a licence merely because the police authorities have not recorded any specific threat perception. Had the legislature intended such a requirement, the same would have found express mention in the statute. The Court cannot read into the statute a condition which the legislature itself has consciously omitted. Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 15/19 17. A perusal of the impugned order further reveals that the licensing authority has not recorded any finding that the petitioner is prohibited by law from possessing firearms. There is no finding that the petitioner is of unsound mind. There is no finding that the petitioner is for any reason unfit to possess an arm. There is equally no finding that grant of licence would endanger public peace, public safety or public interest. In absence of such findings, the statutory foundation necessary for refusal under Section 14 is absent. The materials available on record, on the contrary, indicate that the petitioner's antecedents were duly verified by the competent police authorities. No criminal case was reported to be pending against him. No adverse report regarding his character, conduct or reputation was submitted. The respondents have not disputed these facts either in the impugned orders or in the counter affidavit filed before this Court. 18. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the matter had earlier travelled before the appellate authority in Arms Appeal No. 164 of 2016. The Divisional Commissioner, while remanding the matter, had specifically directed fresh consideration in the light of the legal principles governing Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act. The remand was not an empty formality. It required Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 16/19 the licensing authority to undertake a fresh and meaningful examination of the petitioner's claim in accordance with law. However, upon careful scrutiny of the order dated 25.11.2019, this Court finds that the licensing authority has substantially reiterated its earlier approach and has failed to address the core issue as to whether any statutory disqualification existed against the petitioner. The order demonstrates that the authority remained preoccupied with the absence of threat perception while overlooking the more fundamental requirement of identifying a legally sustainable ground for refusal under Section 14. 19. Another aspect which deserves consideration is that the police report itself recorded certain circumstances relied upon by the petitioner regarding incidents affecting his family. The report noted that the petitioner's grandfather was allegedly killed by Naxalites in the year 1987 and that another person associated with the family was also killed in a subsequent incident. Whether such circumstances by themselves conclusively establish threat perception is not the issue before this Court. What is significant is that the authorities were required to objectively evaluate the entirety of the materials on record. Instead, the application came to be rejected solely because the police report did not expressly use Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 17/19 the phrase "threat perception". Such an approach reflects excessive reliance on form rather than substance. 20. The submission of the respondents that the application was merely forwarded and not specifically recommended by the police authorities is equally of little consequence. A recommendation by the police is not binding upon the licensing authority; similarly, absence of a recommendation cannot automatically result in rejection. What is material is whether the verification process revealed any disqualification or adverse material. Admittedly, none has been brought on record. 21. This Court is also unable to sustain the appellate order dated 20.06.2023. An appellate authority is expected to independently examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the order under challenge. The order of the Divisional Commissioner does not reflect any such exercise. The appellate authority failed to examine whether the licensing authority had identified any statutory ground under Section 14. It also failed to consider whether the remand directions issued in the earlier appeal had been faithfully complied with. The appellate order thus suffers from the same infirmities which vitiate the original order. 22. The law is well settled that when a statute prescribes specific grounds upon which an application may be rejected, an Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 18/19 authority cannot supplement those grounds by importing considerations which find no place in the statutory framework. Administrative discretion cannot substitute statutory requirements. An order founded upon irrelevant considerations and ignoring relevant considerations is vulnerable to judicial review and cannot be permitted to stand. 23. This Court, therefore, finds that the impugned orders are not supported by any legally sustainable reason. The petitioner has remained in pursuit of his application for a considerable length of time. The matter has already undergone one round of appellate scrutiny and remand. All relevant materials are available on record. The respondents have failed to point out any statutory disqualification attached to the petitioner. In such circumstances, remanding the matter yet again would merely prolong the litigation and result in further harassment to the petitioner without serving any useful purpose. 24. This Court is therefore satisfied that the impugned orders dated 25.11.2019 and 20.06.2023 are arbitrary, unsustainable in law, contrary to the scheme of Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, and liable to be quashed. They are accordingly quashed. Since the petitioner is pursuing his case for grant of licence since 2014 i.e. now for the last twelve years, as such, a Patna High Court CWJC No.3231 of 2024 dt.19-06-2026 19/19 direction is issued to the District Magistrate, Buxar to consider the grant of licence in favour of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid discussions within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. 25. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. kiran/- (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 22.06.2026. Transmission Date