Patna High Court: In a writ petition filed by an arms and ammunition dealer, after the Home Department denied her request for an enhanced quota despite favourable recommendations, a Single-Judge Bench of Alok Kumar Sinha, J., while quashing the two Memos from the Home Department held that the rejection was arbitrary, discriminatory, and based on vague, irrelevant grounds like celebratory firing, thereby violating the petitioner’s rights under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court directed the respondents to enhance the quota as per the recommendations of the district-level authorities within two weeks.
Background
The petitioner, an arms and ammunition dealer, is a licensee under the provisions of the Arms Act and the Rules framed thereunder. While seeking renewal of her license, she also prayed for enhancement in the quantity of arms and ammunitions permissible under her license, on the ground that the sanctioned limit was insufficient to cater to the genuine demand of licensed arms holders. This application was recommended and approved by the District Magistrate (‘DM’), Patna, and subsequently by the Commissioner, Patna. Despite these clear recommendations the Government via Memo dated 28-12-2016, declined the request, citing the erroneous assumption of sufficient stock in the district. Further on 03-05-2024 her claim was again rejected on the irrelevant ground of alleged ‘celebratory firing’ without a hearing, despite a prior direction from the Court. The petitioner aggrieved by the two memos of the State government filed the present petition
Issues
-
Whether the petitioner has a legal right to seek enhancement of the quota?
-
Whether the recommendations of the DM and Divisional Commissioner are binding on the State Government?
-
Whether the petitioner has been treated unequally in comparison to other arms dealers of different districts
-
Whether the reasons cited by the respondents, such as public safety and misuse of firearms, are valid grounds to deny enhancement of quota?
Analysis and Decision
On Legal Right to Seek Enhancement
The Court noted that though the power to regulate the quota of arms and ammunition vests with the competent authority, such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in disregard of material facts. A dealer holding a valid license carries with it not merely the right to continue in trade but also a legitimate expectation that her business will be allowed to expand in accordance with market demand, subject to reasonable regulatory control. The recommendations of DM as well as Divisional Commissioner cannot be treated as empty formalities since they form part of the statutory process of consideration and reflect an official satisfaction at the district level regarding the bona fides and necessity of the petitioner’s request.
The apprehensions such as celebratory firing and alleged sufficiency of stock in the district are ex facie irrelevant in the case of a licensed dealer who is authorized to sell only to genuine license holders under the strict scrutiny of law.
“A refusal based on extraneous considerations amounts to arbitrariness and offends the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The Court held that the petitioner, as a licensed dealer, possesses a legal right to seek enhancement of her quota, and the authorities were bound to consider the same fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the recommendations of the district-level officers. The denial of enhancement in the present case is thus unsustainable in law.
On Binding Nature of Recommendations
The Court noted that the final power to grant or refuse enhancement vests with the State Government through its Home Department, but this power is not unfettered. The recommendations of the DM and Divisional Commissioner form an integral part of the statutory consultative process. These authorities are the field-level functionaries most directly acquainted with the local law-and-order situation, actual demand of licensed holders, and the conduct of the petitioner as a licensee. Once they have applied their mind and recommended enhancement, the State Government is required to assign cogent, relevant, and rational reasons if it chooses to differ.
The Home Department failed to address the specific recommendation that the petitioner’s existing quota was insufficient to meet the legitimate demand of licensed arms holders in Patna. The rejection suffers from non-application of mind and arbitrariness.
The Court observed that while the recommendations of the DM and Divisional Commissioner may not be technically binding in the sense of curtailing the discretion of the State Government, they are nevertheless binding in effect to the extent that the Government cannot disregard them without recording compelling and germane reasons.
The Court held that in the absence of such reasons, the rejection memos cannot be sustained.
On Unequal Treatment of Petitioner
The Court noted that while the State Government may certainly adopt differential standards keeping in mind local conditions, such differentiation must be founded on intelligible criteria and supported by cogent reasoning. While rejecting the request, State government did not record any valid reason as to why dealers in smaller districts could be allowed enhanced quotas whereas the petitioner in Patna, where demand was admittedly higher, should be restricted to a lower limit. Such selective treatment, in the absence of any rational justification, offends the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The principle of equality does not mean uniformity in all cases, but it certainly mandates that similarly situated persons cannot be treated unequally without a valid basis.
The Court observed that the petitioner was subjected to unequal and discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis other arms dealers of different districts, and the memos are liable to be set aside on this ground as well.
On Validity of Reasons Cited by Respondents
While acknowledging the State’s right to regulate trade in the interest of public safety and under Article 19(6) of the Constitution, the Court stated that this power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or based on vague and general apprehensions.
The respondents sought to justify the denial of enhancement to the petitioner on grounds of celebratory firing, misuse of arms in crimes, and indiscriminate hunting. But failed to connect such activities with the petitioner or her business operations. Moreover, as a licensed dealer, the petitioner was legally permitted to sell only to individuals holding valid arms licenses, whose use of ammunition is already subject to strict regulation and record-keeping. The respondents’ apprehensions too remote and generalized to constitute valid reasons for rejection. The blanket invocation of “public safety” without demonstrating any rational nexus to the petitioner’s case cannot be sustained in law, as it would reduce the statutory right to carry on licensed trade into an illusory formality.
In light of the afore-stated reasons, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Memos, directing the respondents to enhance the quota of arms and ammunition for the petitioner in line with the recommendations of the DM and the Divisional Commissioner.
[Premlata and Sons v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 2608, decided on 20-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate, Manisha Pandey, Deepak Kumar, Shweta Pandey, Sanket, Advocates
For the Respondents: Nadeem Seraj, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
