JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Amir Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Manish, learned Standing Counsel-5. 2. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.08.2014 passed in Arms Case No. 91 of 2012 by Respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra as well as the order dated 09.03.2016 passed in Arms Appeal No. 26 of 2015 by Respondent No. 2, Divisional Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra, whereby the petitioner’s application for grant of arms licence has been rejected by the District Magistrate and the same has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the father of the petitioner, Md. Zakaria had a licence for DBBL gun being Licence No. 111/74. The father of the petitioner died on 19.04.1996, thereafter the petitioner deposited the arms before local authorized arms dealer namely, Siraj & Brother on 04.06.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of licence of DBBL gun in 1996 itself. Respondent No. 6, the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Chapra recommended the case of the petitioner vide order dated 20.06.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner’s case was also recommended by the then Arms Magistrate but on one pretext or the other it was kept pending and ultimately Respondent No. 3, the District Magistrate vide order dated 08.08.2014 passed in Arms Case No. 91/2012 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that though the family of the petitioner reside at Chapra but the petitioner runs a hair cutting saloon at Patna and though, there is no adverse entry against the petitioner in the police records but neither the police report nor in the application of the petitioner there is anything to suggest that the petitioner is having threat to his life or property. The order of the District Magistrate was challenged in Arms Appeal No. 26 of 2015. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 09.03.2016 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Saran on the ground that the District Magistrate has come to a conclusive finding that the petitioner is not having any threat perception, particularly, on the basis of the report of Respondent No. 4, the S.P., Saran. Hence, the present writ application. 4. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 09.03.2016 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Saran on the ground that the District Magistrate has come to a conclusive finding that the petitioner is not having any threat perception, particularly, on the basis of the report of Respondent No. 4, the S.P., Saran. Hence, the present writ application. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner never misused the said licence and for the safety of his life and property, the licence was granted to the father of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a genealogical certificate issued by Respondent No. 7, the Circle Officer, Sadar, Saran as well as affidavit on behalf of other family members to the effect that they are not having any objection in grant of arms licence in favour of the petitioner. The grant of licence to the heirs of the licensee is a mode of transfer with the initial grant of arms licence. This Court in various judgments had held that threat perception cannot be a pre-condition for grant of arms licence. Though, the petitioner runs a saloon at Patna but his entire family and he also claims to reside at Chapra. 5. Mr. Kumar Manish, learned counsel for the Respondent State submits that the order passed by the District Magistrate clearly reflects that the petitioner runs a hair cutting saloon at Patna and neither the police report nor the application of the petitioner suggests that he had any threat to his life and property. The order of the District Magistrate has been scrutinized by the Appellate Authority and he has not found any infirmity in the order of the District Magistrate and hence, the Appellate Authority has also rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court in numerous judgment has held that the application for grant of licence cannot be rejected on the ground that the applicant is not having any threat perception. Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act stipulate the parameters for grant and refusal of the arms licence. The provisions do not stipulate such classification as a pre-condition that the licence can only be granted to a person who has threat perception. A useful reference may in the case of Siya Ram Rai Vs. Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act stipulate the parameters for grant and refusal of the arms licence. The provisions do not stipulate such classification as a pre-condition that the licence can only be granted to a person who has threat perception. A useful reference may in the case of Siya Ram Rai Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2015(2) PLJR 303 where a bench of this Court held that Section 13 of the Arms Act lays down the parameters for grant of licence but it does not create a category or classification as a pre-condition that such grant will be made to only such person who has threat perception. Paragraph 6 reads as follows:- “6.Section 13 of the Arms Act provides for grant of license and creates no such categories or classification as a pre-condition to filing of such application that the applicant should be facing imminent danger to his life. Section 13 is a legal right vested in a citizen of this country to apply for a license without any pre-conditions and even when the discretion is vested in the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act to refuse the same, the field is clearly described therein. The provisions of Section 14 makes it eloquent that absence of perceived threat is no condition to refuse a license. Even the circular dated 31.03.2010 relied upon by the District Magistrate issued by the Government of India does not create any bar. Paragraph ii(a) of the circular in fact merely provides that applications from persons who have perceived threats may be considered. Such requirement no manner would mean or can be interpreted to exclude such persons who do not face any such threat for the simple reason that any such condition being imposed through a circular of the department, would be contrary to the statutory provisions.” 6. The issue that the application for grant of arms licence cannot be rejected only on the ground of absence of threat perception has been settled by a bench of this Court in the case of Amrendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2008 (1) PLJR 151 . Paragraph 2 of the judgment reads as follows: “2. The issue that the application for grant of arms licence cannot be rejected only on the ground of absence of threat perception has been settled by a bench of this Court in the case of Amrendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2008 (1) PLJR 151 . Paragraph 2 of the judgment reads as follows: “2. The petitioner had applied for an arms licence which has been refused by the impugned order dated 5.8.2006 passed in Arms Act Case No. 197 of 2006 by the District Magistratecum- Collector, Rohtas. The only ground given is that even though the petitioner had valid recommendations from all concerned, he had failed to file any cogent documentary evidence in support of any threat to him. A bare perusal of the order shows total non-application of mind. This Court wonders what the learned licensing authority means by the aforesaid. Does he mean that an arms licence would only be granted if there has been threat to life and property or does he mean that people have to be killed in order to qualify for getting arms licence? I am afraid, he has totally misconstrued his jurisdiction in this regard. An arms licence is for protection and is a statutory right. It is not dependent on any actual incident having occurred. For if that were so, the Act and the Rules framed thereunder would have clearly specified that as a policy for grant of licence. That is not so. It is not a grant of privilege by the licensing authority on his own sole subjective discretion.” 7. A Bench of this Court, however, in the case of Raj Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2012(2) PLJR 695 , held that refusal to grant licence on the ground that the applicant has no threat perception, amounts to make the discretionary jurisdiction under Rule 14 of Arms Act contrary to the parameters incorporated therein. Paragraph 18 reads as follows: “18. It is not the stand of the Licensing Authority that the petitioner falls within either of the category as set out in Section 14 of the Act. The law is well settled that when a statute prescribes an action to be taken in a particular manner, it has to be performed in that manner alone. It is not the stand of the Licensing Authority that the petitioner falls within either of the category as set out in Section 14 of the Act. The law is well settled that when a statute prescribes an action to be taken in a particular manner, it has to be performed in that manner alone. In the present case, the provisions of Section 14 of the Act categorizes the circumstance in which an arms licence can be refused and also vests power in the authority to exercise discretion while refusing the licence under the provisions of Section 14(b)(3) of the Act holding a person unfit for grant of licence. It is not a case where the petitioner has been held unfit for grant of licence. The stand taken by the respondents relying upon the discretionary power vested in the Licensing Authority under Section 14 of the Act, cannot be expanded to such an extent so as to render the very provisions redundant. The power vested in the Licensing Authority and the provisions of Section 14(3) of the Act to refuse licence for the reasons recorded in the order has to be read in consonance and stipulation as set out in sub Section(1) there of.” 8. Further in the case of Sushil Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 2015(2) PLJR 549 . Paragraph 8 reads as follows:- “8. Section 13 of ‘the Act’ provides for grant of licence and creates no such categories or classification as a pre-condition for filing of such application that the applicant or his family members should be facing imminent danger to his life. Section 13 is a legal right vested in a citizen of this country to apply for a licence without any pre-condition and even when the discretion is vested in the licensing authority i.e. the District Magistrate under Section 14 of ‘the Act’ to refuse a licence, the field is clearly described therein. The provision of Section 14 makes it eloquent that absence of perceived threat is no condition to refuse a licence.” 9. Further in the case of Manish Kumar Vs. The provision of Section 14 makes it eloquent that absence of perceived threat is no condition to refuse a licence.” 9. Further in the case of Manish Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 2016 Patna 9, a Bench of this Court while considering several judgments of this Court, held that in absence of threat perception, it does not make an applicant unfit for grant of licence under Section 13 of the Act or it cannot be refused to grant under Section 14 of the Arms Act. Paragraph 29 reads as follows:- “29. This Court is in agreement with the aforesaid decision as a conjoint reading of Sections 13 and 14 of the Act does not disclose anywhere that the absence of any evidence regarding threat can form a condition for refusal to grant arms licence. In my considered opinion, the licensing authority cannot apply its discretion in a manner to hold that lack of evidence regarding threat perception would make the applicant unfit for grant of licence under Section 14(1)(b)(i)(3) of the Act. The provision has to be read necessarily as the same is there without substituting or taking away anything there from. It clearly lays down that the licence can be refused if the applicant is found unfit for any reason under the Act. However, since none of the provisions of the statute discloses that imminent danger or actual threat perception may form a ground for refusal of licence, it cannot be held that the same may form a reason declaring the applicant unfit for grant of licence under the Act in view of the provisions contained in Section 14(1)(b)(i)(3).” 10. In view of this Court it is true that no citizen has a fundamental right to have a licence of arms. But, it is a statutory right and the statutory authority’s subjective satisfaction is paramount while granting the licence. The licence is granted to the heirs of the licensee. It is a mode in the nature of transfer than the actual or initial grant of licence. In Arms Rules, 1962, there was no provision for grant of licence to the heirs of the licensee. However, in pursuance to the specific instruction issued by Ministry of Home, Govt. of India the then Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. It is a mode in the nature of transfer than the actual or initial grant of licence. In Arms Rules, 1962, there was no provision for grant of licence to the heirs of the licensee. However, in pursuance to the specific instruction issued by Ministry of Home, Govt. of India the then Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar issued advisories not only to dispose of the application for grant of arms licence to the heirs of the licensee where either the licensee attains the age of 70 years or he has arms licensee for 25 years or more. Considering the delay in such grant/transfer of licence, the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Bihar vide Memo No. 8212 dated 13th October, 2014 issued directives to all the licensing authorities to expedite the disposal of such application where the applicants being the heir of initial licensee claims for grant of licence and the said direction was also issued to the Divisional Commissioner and the S.Ps. within the State of Bihar for transmitting the police report, which reads as follows:- Lkafpdk la0 & 7@ vuq0&10& 27@ 2014 x`0vk0 fcgkj ljdkj x`g ¼vkj{kh½ foHkkx izs”kd] vkfej lqcgkuh] ljdkj ds iz/kku lfpo] lsok esa lHkh ftyk inkf/kdkjh fcgkjA fo"k; %& 'kL= vuqKfIr?kfj;ksa dh e`R;q@70 o"kZ dk gksus@25 o’kZ ;k mlls vf/kd 'kL= /kkj.k djus ds fLFkfr esa muds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa dks 'kL= vuqKfIr fuxZr djus rFkk 'kL= gLrkarj.k ds laca/k esaA egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo”k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd x`g ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ds i=kad V-11019/23/95. – ‘kL=] fnukad 28-02-1995 ,oa i=kad V- 11016/16/2009. – ‘kL=] fnukad 28-02-1995 ,oa i=kad V- 11016/16/2009. ‘kL= fnukad & 31-03-2010 ds dafMdk & ¼iii½ ds }kjk e`r ‘kL= vuqKfIr/kkjh ;k oSls vuqKfIr/kkjh ftudk mez 70 o’kZ gks x;k gS ;k 25 o’kZ ;k mlls vf/kd le; ls ‘kL= /kkj.k fd;s gq, gS] ds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa dks ‘kL= vuqKfIr fuxZr djus dk fn’k funsZ’k tkjh fd;k x;k gSA iqoZ ds i= esa oS/k mÙkjkf/kdkjh ds :Ik esa ifr] iRuh ,oa iq=h dks bl mns’; ds fy;s mÙkjkf/kdkjh ekuk x;k FkkA ckn ds i= esa nkekn cgq] HkkbZ ,oa cgu dks Hkh bl mns’; ds fy;s oS/k mÙkjkf/kdkjh ds :Ik esa ekU;rk nh x;h gS rFkk funs’k fn;k x;k gS fd mDr dksfV ds ‘kL= vuqKfIr/kkfj;ksa ds bu oS/k lacaf/k;ksa ds ‘kL= gLrkarj.k ds vkosnu i= dks rn~uqlkj fu"ikfnr fd;k tk;sA ljdkj dks f’kdk;rsa izkIr gks jgh gS fd mij of.kZr dksfV ds vuqKfIr/kkfj;ksa ds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;kas dks ‘kL= vuqKfIr fuxZr djus rFkk buds vuqKfIr ij /kkfjr ‘kL=ksa dks ‘kL= gLrkarj.k ds vkosnu i=ksa ds fu’iknu esa ftyk Lrj ij dfBukbZ gks jgh gS rFkk blesa dkQh foyEc gks jgk gSA vr% funs’k fn;k tkrk gS fd mDr dksfV ds vuqKfIr/kkfj;ksa ds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa ds ‘kL= vf/kfu;e 1959 ds izko/kku ds rgr izkIr ‘kL= vuqKfIr ds vkosnu i= dh Rofjr tk¡p djkrs gq, fu;ekuqlkj ‘kL= vuqKfIr djus ‘kL= ds gLrkarj.k ds laca/k esa izkIr vkosnu ds vkyksd esa mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa ds Lohd`r ‘kL= vuqKfIr ij gLrkarfjr djus rFkk bl laca/k esa foHkkx dks d`r dkjZokbZ dh lwpuk miyC/k djkus dh d`ik djsaA fo’oklHkktu g0@& ¼vkfej lqcgkuh½ ljdkj ds iz/kku lfpo Kkikad & 7 @ vuq0 &10&27@ 2014] x`0vk0------------------- @ iVuk] fnukad------------ vDVwcj] 2014 Ikzfrfyfi %& lHkh iqfyl v/kh{kd dks lwpukFkZ izsf’kr djrs gq, funs’k fn;k tkrk gS fd os bl rjg ds ekeys dk fu;ekuqlkj tk¡p izfrosnu vius&vius ftyk inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks ;Fkk'kh?kz miyC/k djkuk lqfuf’pr djsaA g0@& ljdkj ds iz/kku lfpo Kkikad & 7&vuq0&10&27@2014 x`0vk0& 8212@ iVuk ] fnukad 13 vDVwcj]2014 Ikzfrfyfi %& lHkh ize.Myh; vk;qDr fcgkj dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko’;d dkjZokbZ gsrq izsf’krA Lkjdkj ds iz/kku lfpo 13-10-14 11. But it appears that the above directives of the Principal Secretary, Department of Home has no impact on the licensing authorities. 12. But it appears that the above directives of the Principal Secretary, Department of Home has no impact on the licensing authorities. 12. It appears that realizing that the executive instructions and advisories are not having any impact on the licensing authority or the appellate authority, the specific provision has been inserted in Rule 25 of Arms Rules, 12016, which reads as follows:- “Grant of licences to legal heirs. – ((1) The licensing authority may grant a licence- (a) after the death of the licensee, to his legal heir; or (b) in any other case, on the licensee attaining the age of seventy years or on holding the fire-arm for twenty-five years, whichever is earlier, to any legal heir nominated by him: 13. Provided that notwithstanding the provisions contained in Rule 12 of these Rules, the licensing authority may grant a licence to such legal heir if the eligibility conditions under the Act and these Rules were fulfilled by the said legal heir and there are no adverse remarks in the police report. (2) Where a licensee leaves behind more than one legal heir and the legal heirs decided amongst themselves to retain the arm or arms of the deceased, one of the legal heirs nominated by all other legal heirs may apply for a licence under sub-rule (1) along with the following documents, namely:- (i) a declaration of no-objection from the remaining legal heirs; (ii) an indemnity bond executed by the applicant giving full details of the licence and the arm or arms endorsed thereupon; and (iii) a copy of the death certificate of the deceased licensee. (3) (3) Where the legal heirs decide to dispose of the arm or arms endorsed on the license of the deceased licensee, they may apply to the licensing authority for grant of a limited period permission to sell the arm or arms, within the time allowed by such authority, to any licensed dealer or to any other person entitled to possess an arm under these rules. (4) Explanation. – For the purposes of this rule, “legal heirs” includes husband, wife, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother, sister and grandchildren of the licensee or the deceased licensee.” 14. (4) Explanation. – For the purposes of this rule, “legal heirs” includes husband, wife, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother, sister and grandchildren of the licensee or the deceased licensee.” 14. A careful perusal of Rule 25 suggests that licensing authority may grant licence to such applicant who made applications after the death of the licensee or attaining the age of seventy years or on holding the fire-arm for twenty-five years, whichever is earlier, to any legal heir nominated by him provided the applicant fulfills the eligibility conditions and there is no adverse remark in the police report. Admittedly, in the case of the petitioner, there is no adverse remark against the petitioner rather police recommended for grant of arms licence to the petitioner. However, earlier similar instructions were issued by the Ministry of Home, Govt. of India with regard to giving preference to such applicants, who have licence, but such instructions have been misinterpreted by the licensing authority and the appellate authority to the extent that they have only granted licence only to such persons who have the licence, which resulted into a conclusion that unless the person’s life is attacked he cannot have arms licence, which frustrates the whole purpose for grant of arms licence for the safety of life and property. 15. Rule 12 of the Arms Rules, 2016 prescribes the obligation of the licensing authority in certain cases. 15. Rule 12 of the Arms Rules, 2016 prescribes the obligation of the licensing authority in certain cases. Rule 12(2) (a) prescribes for grant of licence for the restricted arms or ammunition specific in category I(b) and I(c) in Schedule I, the licensing authority, may consider the application of any person who faces grave and anticipated threat to his life being resident of a geographical area or areas where militants, terrorists or extremists are most active or being the prime target in the eyes of militants, terrorists or extremists or facing danger to his life for being inimical to be aims and objectives of the militants, terrorists or extremists or the Government official by virtue of the office occupied by him or by the nature of duty performed by him and/or in due discharge of his official duty is exposed to anticipated risk to his life or member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly, who by virtue or having close or active association with anti-militant, anti-terrorist or anti-extremist programmes and policies of the Government or by mere reason of holding views, political or otherwise, exposed himself to anticipated risk to his life or any family member or kith and kin of a person who by the very nature of his duty or performance (past or present) or position occupied in the Government (past or present) or even otherwise for known or unknown reasons exposed himself to anticipated risk to his life or any other person, for any legitimate and genuine reason, to the satisfaction of the licensing authority, by passing a speaking order in this regard. 16. Rule 12 does not mean that the category which has been mentioned in Rule 12(2), only they can be granted licence, rather it means that licensing authority should give preference to such persons but that does not mean that the person who is not having any threat to his life or property cannot get licence. 17. 16. Rule 12 does not mean that the category which has been mentioned in Rule 12(2), only they can be granted licence, rather it means that licensing authority should give preference to such persons but that does not mean that the person who is not having any threat to his life or property cannot get licence. 17. In view of the discussions made above, this Court has no option except to set aside the order of the licensing authority, as contained in Annexure-6 and the order passed by the appellate authority, as contained in Annexure-7 and the matter is remanded back to Respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra to re-consider the application for grant of licence to the petitioner, in view of the heirloom policy as envisaged under Rule 25 of Arms Rules, 2016, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this application is allowed.