District Arms Magistrate v. Sahibganj, P.O
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 483 of 2023 Pawan Kumar Yadav @ Pawan Yadav, aged about 39 years, Son of Late Vishwanath Yadav, Resident of Village Jayanti Gram, Mahadeoganj, P.O. Mahadeoganj, P.S. Sahibganj (M), District Sahibganj, Jharkhand Petitioner … … 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner-Cum-District Arms Magistrate, Versus Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. – Sahibganj, District Sahibganj 3. The Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. – Sahibganj and … Respondents District Sahibganj … --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Amitesh Kr. Geasen, Advocate --- 02/10.04.2023 1. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, “for the nature of Mandamus direction/directions or a writ in commanding and directing upon the respondents especially the respondent no. 2(The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj) to grant Arms licence to the petitioner earliest in view of Section 13 of the Arms Act, in pursuance to his application made in prescribed format so that he may defend himself from the anti-social elements/enemy as they are eminent danger to his life and property, they may take his life at any time and in absence of Arms the petitioner is defenceless and has reasonable apprehension of commission of overt act due to land dispute. AND/OR Any other appropriate writ/writs be issued, order/orders be passed, direction/directions be made as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had moved this Court earlier in W.P. (Cr.) No. 527/2022 seeking a direction upon the respondents to properly investigate the case in connection with Boryo (J) P.S. Case No. 365/2021 dated 29.11.2021 and at that point of time, it was pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj. The learned counsel submits that prior to that the petitioner had applied for gun license vide application dated 26.06.2021. The learned counsel has also submitted that the said writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned 2 Deputy Commissioner or Superintendent of Police with regard to threat. The learned counsel submits that thereafter the petitioner filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj as well as Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj vide representation dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure-7) making a request for issuance of gun license for his safety. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the respondents have neither taken a final call in connection with his application for gun license nor they have taken any steps for consideration of his representation dated 23.12.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner may approach the respondent No. 2 for the needful, who shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The learned counsel has also submitted that he is not aware with regard to up to date status of the application for gun license/ application dated 23.12.2022, but if no such order has been passed there is no impediment for the respondent No. 2 to consider the same and pass appropriate order. 5. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he would be satisfied if appropriate direction is issued to the respondent No. 2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that earlier the petitioner had moved this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No. 527/2022 seeking a direction upon the respondents to properly investigate the case in connection with Boryo (J) P.S. Case No. 365/2021 dated 29.11.2021. However, the said writ petition was disposed of with the following observations: -
Decision
“4. In view of the above facts and considering that the matter is of the year 2021 and charge-sheet has already been submitted against two accused persons and for remaining, investigation is going on and the petitioner has not been able to show what is the lacuna in the investigation of the police, no positive order can be passed in this petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned Deputy Commissioner or the Superintendent of Police with regard to threat. 5. With the aforesaid liberty, this petition stands disposed of.” 7. It further appears that the petitioner had earlier filed an application for gun license on 26.06.2021 and after disposal of the aforesaid writ 3 petition, he approached the respondent No. 2 as well respondent No. 3 vide representation dated 23.12.2022 expressing threat to his life and also for issuance of gun license. As per the writ records, the said request of the petitioner has not been considered so far. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 19.04.2023 by filing a detailed representation raising his grievance along with a copy of this order and a copy of the writ records. 9. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent No. 2 is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law regarding his grievance as raised vide representation dated 23.12.2022 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order be passed within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner and the same be also communicated to the petitioner through speed post at the address which may be provided by the petitioner in the representation itself. 10. It is made clear that if an appropriate order has already been passed pursuant to the representation dated 23.12.2022 and /or in connection with his application for gun license said to have been filed on 26.06.2021, no fresh order need be passed and the said order be simply communicated to the petitioner through speed post. 11. This Court has not gone into the merits or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner and it is for the respondent No. 2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law. 12. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)