Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010257552025 2026:GAU-AS:8684 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6766/2025 RAMJAN ALI S/O- LT ABDUL HALIM, R-O- VILL- DEWRIKUCHI,P.O- SONKUCHI, P.S- BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM,PIN- 781314 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, JANATA BHAWAN, 3RD FLOOR, I BLOCK, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSAM PIN - 781301 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BARPETA ASSAM PIN -781301 4:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301 5:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE BARPETA POLICE STATION. PS- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 78130 Page No.# 2/4 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI For the Petitioner : Shri. J Abbas, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. U Das, Advocate. Date on which judgment is reserved : Not applicable Date of pronouncement of judgment : 17.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : Not applicable. Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes. J UDGMENT & O RDER (ORAL) Heard Shri. J. Abbas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. U. Das, learned State Counsel. [2] The instant application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers:- “(A) Directing/commanding the respondent authorities, more Page No.# 3/4 particularly to the respondent No. 2, to grant arms license forthwith to the petitioner as sought by him vide the application dated 01.02.2024; and/or; (B) Directing/commanding the respondent authorities, more particularly to the respondent No. 2, to pass a speaking order as required under the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 2016, upon consideration of petitioner’s application, police report and other materials on record; and/or; (C) Setting aside and quashing such other order/orders, if any, passed behind the back of the petitioner, rejecting his application for armed license; and/or; (D) pass further such order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.” [3] As per the facts projected, the petitioner is a Journalist and claims to be a well known businessman of the locality. On 01.03.2024, he had applied for an arms license. It is contended that there are frequent threatening and attacks on him, his family members and his property. It is also contended that an enquiry was made and a verification report was issued on 14.07.2024 and the said was sent to the District Commissioner by the Superintendent of Police on 28.02.2025. It is contended that though a time limit is prescribed under the Rules holding the field, the license has not been granted. [4] Ms. Das, the learned State Counsel has submitted that grant of an Page No.# 4/4 arm license cannot be a matter of right and unless citizen makes out a case of extreme urgency or threatening to lives in which the State has not been able to provide any security, a case may be made out. [5] On a specific query made to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether any FIR or complaint was lodged by him, the learned counsel has not been able to produce any such document. Though he had sought for time, this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition, which was filed in the year 2025 and is pending for about a year and while filing and even during this period, the petitioner did not deem it fit to annex further documents. [6] This Court is of the view that the desire to possess arms for which an arms license is required cannot be held an indefeasible right. It is trite that such right is not a fundamental right and is rather a privilege. The authorities have a discretion to judge the fitness and potential threat to public safety. Amongst others, a perceptible threat is required to be demonstrated with a further requirement that the State machinery has failed to provide the security and maintain law and order in spite of approaches. That is not the case which appears from the materials placed before this Court. [7] The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant