Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010155802025 2026:GAU-AS:1460 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4135/2025 SRI PRANAB KUMAR LAHAKAR SON OF MOHAN LAHAKAR, R/O HOUSE NO 51, BYE LANE 2 LICHUBAGAN, HENGRABARI, DISPUR, KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI 7 3:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KAMRUP METRO GUWAHATI 4:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE EAST DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO GUWAHATI 6:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE DISPUR POLICE STATION GUWAHATI 6 ASSA Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. P Kataki Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. JK Goswami, Govt. Advocate, Assam B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 04.02.2026 Heard Mr. P Kataki, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. JK Goswami, the learned Government Advocate, who appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner has applied for an Arms License and the said Arms License was not issued to the petitioner. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner is a Class-I C Contractor of the PWD Road Division and he is a proprietor of a Firm M/s. Ganesh Laxmi Enterprise. In the year 2019, more particularly, on 12.05.2019, the petitioner was subjected to harassment by some labourers and under such circumstances, the petitioner submitted an FIR on 12.05.2019, accompanied by another letter dated 13.05.2019. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner was also verbally abused by a lady labourer on 11.05.2024. Under such circumstances, the petitioner out of fear and apprehending danger to his life applied for a fresh Page No.# 3/4 Arms License in a prescribed format by submitting an application to the SDJM (Sadar) Kamrup (M) District vide a letter dated 19.12.2022. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Officer-in-Charge of the Dispur Police Station had recommended or issuance of an Arms License to the petitioner on 11.01.2023 and the same was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (East) Guwahati. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (East) did not recommend as per the Note dated 22.01.2022 and resultantly the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Intelligence) also did not recommend. 6. Being aggrieved the petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court for appropriate writ, direction and order. 7. The records reveal that vide the order dated 28.07.2025, this Court while issuing notice, sought for instructions as regards the reason as to why there was no recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Intelligence) inasmuch as, he had only stated that the petitioner’s application for Arms License was not recommended. In pursuance to that an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Intelligence) on behalf of the respondent No.4 stating inter alia that the issuance of Arms License was not necessary as the petitioner had no specific threat. It was also mentioned that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (East) also did not recommend the issuance of Arms License to the petitioner as there was no specific threat. 8. This Court has also perused the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3, wherein it is mentioned that though the Officer-in-Charge of the Dispur Police Station has recommended issuance of the license, but, however, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (East) and the Deputy Page No.# 4/4 Commissioner of Police (Intelligence) did not recommend issuance of Arms License upon assessment of threat perception. 9. This Court on the basis of the above, enquired with the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what is the basis of the threat. The learned counsel had laid emphasis on the FIR dated 12.05.2019 as well as 11.05.2024. 10. A perusal of the aforesaid FIRs, do not give any grounds of judicial review for this Court to override the recommendations so made by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (East) as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Intelligence) not to recommend issuance of Arms License to the petitioner. Further the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Intelligence) and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (East) not to recommend cannot be interfered lightly unless the petitioner places strong grounds with evidence that the rejection was done mechanically. The materials on record fail to substantiate that the petitioner has serious threat perception. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant