ORDER : I.A. No. 10965/2019 The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for amendment in the present writ petition seeking challenge to memo No. 1277 dated 18.11.2019 (Annexure-14 to the present interlocutory application) whereby the petitioner has been communicated by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi that his application for seeking exemption from depositing the licensed arms during the ensuing Jharkhand Legislative Assembly Election, has been rejected and he has been directed to deposit the same by 28.11.2019. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the decision as contained in memo No. 1277 dated 18.11.2019 is a subsequent event and the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the present writ petition, the petitioner is allowed to challenge the decision as contained in memo No. 1277 dated 18.11.2019. Let necessary insertion in the relevant part of the present writ petition be carried out by learned counsel for the petitioner in course of the day. The present interlocutory application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No. 6303 of 2019 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to forthwith relax the direction as contained in memo No. 1230 dated 17.10.2019 (Anneuxre-9 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.1, which is general press release, for depositing the licensed arms to the concerned P.S/O.P/authorised arms dealer in the district of Ranchi for conducting fair, peaceful and fearless Legislative Assembly Election in Jharkhand so far as the same relates to the petitioner. 2. By way of I.A. No. 10965/2019, the petitioner has also challenged the decision of the Screening Committee as contained in memo No. 1277 dated 18.11.2019 (Annexure-14 to the said interlocutory application) whereby the applications of the petitioner seeking relaxation for retaining at least a single small arms have been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in the Real Estate Business and is the proprietor of Vihangam Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner has several business rivals due to which he has serious life threat. The petitioner retains three arms licenses. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in the Real Estate Business and is the proprietor of Vihangam Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner has several business rivals due to which he has serious life threat. The petitioner retains three arms licenses. First arms license was issued on 18.09.1998 for a single/double barrel gun bearing Licence No. 01/1998 (P.S-Kanke), second arms license was issued on 12.06.2002 for N.P. Bore Revolver/Pistol bearing License No. 01/2002 (P.S Kanke) and the third arms license was issued on 19.09.2003 for N.P. Bore Rifle bearing License No. 02/2003 (P.S-Kanke). All the said arms licenses have been renewed from time to time and are alive as on date. Earlier the petitioner was also provided personal bodyguard with Carbine arms as he was an active member of a political party. Subsequently, the said bodyguard was withdrawn by the government. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during the Lok Sabha Election held in the year 2014, similar general direction was issued to all the arms licensees in Ranchi district and on an application preferred by the petitioner, the respondent authorities relaxed the said direction vide memo No. 906 dated 25.11.2014 (Anneuxre-6 to the writ petition) and he was allowed to retain all the said three licensed arms. Further, during the last Lok Sabha Election held in the month of April-May 2019, the petitioner was allowed to retain a small arms vide decision of the Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as contained in memo No. 614 dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). The petitioner is a law abiding citizen and he is not at all a threat to public peace. In fact, he had requested the respondent authorities during the said Lok Sabha elections to allow him to retain his licensed arms or at least a single small arms for the purpose of his personal safety and security. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to Annexure-13 series to the writ petition submits that due to threats received by the petitioner from few persons, he also filed Informatory Petition Nos. 172/2017 & 1207/2018 before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi which were duly registered by the said Court vide order dated 28.02.2017 and 26.03.2018 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to Annexure-13 series to the writ petition submits that due to threats received by the petitioner from few persons, he also filed Informatory Petition Nos. 172/2017 & 1207/2018 before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi which were duly registered by the said Court vide order dated 28.02.2017 and 26.03.2018 respectively. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to issuance of the general notice for depositing the arms, the petitioner made two applications on 11.11.2019 & 20.11.2019 (Annexure-10 & 12 respectively) before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi seeking relaxation to retain at least a small arms (revolver/pistol) for the purpose of his personal safety and security. However, the application dated 11.11.2019 was arbitrarily rejected by the Screening Committee constituted under the order of the District Election Officer-cum-Licensing Officer (Arms)/the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide impugned order dated as contained in memo No. 1277 dated 18.11.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 18.11.2019, submits that the same is completely unreasoned. If the petitioner can be allowed to retain his licensed arms in the last two general elections, there is no justification in rejecting the petitioner’s application dated 11.11.2019 by the Screening Committee on this occasion that too without assigning any reason whatsoever. Hence, the impugned order dated 18.11.2019 may be quashed and the Screening Committee may be directed to take a fresh decision in this regard considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter. The petitioner nonetheless has deposited all his three arms on 14.11.2019 itself before the Jharkhand Armoury, Arms & Ammunition Dealers, Indira Place, Hinoo, Ranchi. 4. Per-contra, Mr. D. K. Pathak, learned G.A-III, submits that the impugned decision dated 18.11.2019 is completely justified as under the directions of the Election Commission of India, the District Election Officer/Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has to ensure fair and peaceful election. As such, the decision taken by the Screening Committee not to exempt the petitioner from depositing his firearms, does not warrant any interference of this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the present writ petition. According to the petitioner, on his application, he was allowed to retain his licensed arms for the purpose of his personal safety and security in the last two Lok Sabha Elections held in the year 2014 and 2019. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the present writ petition. According to the petitioner, on his application, he was allowed to retain his licensed arms for the purpose of his personal safety and security in the last two Lok Sabha Elections held in the year 2014 and 2019. In the last Lok Sabha Election held in the months of April-May 2019, he was allowed to at least retain a small arms. The informatory petitions filed by the petitioner in the year 2017 and 2018 suggest that the petitioner has a life threat due to business rivalry. Undoubtedly, the Deputy Commissioner/District Election Officer has the duty to get a fair and peaceful election conducted and for the said purpose, the said authority is empowered to issue direction to the arms licencees to surrender their respective arms to the concerned Police Station or the arms dealers. However, in a given case when an arms licensee puts it to the knowledge of the Deputy Commissioner or the Screening Committee constituted by him for the said purpose that he is a law abiding citizen and has a life thereat, the same is required to be considered appropriately. 6. It is well settled that an authority, who is exercising quasi-judicial function, must record reasons in support of the decision. Mere pretence to compliance would not satisfy the requirement of law. Recording of reason in the decision is one of the requirements of principle of natural justice. The administrative authority must see that justice is not only done, but manifestly appears to be done as well. The purpose of recording the reason is to make the concerned person aware of the appreciation of the facts and law on the basis of which the decision has been taken. 7. In the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “40. In Kranti Associates [(2010) 9 SCC 496] this Court after considering various judgments formulated certain principles in SCC para 47 of the judgment which are set out below: (SCC pp. 510-12) “(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. 510-12) “(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or ‘rubber-stamp reasons’ is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harv. L. Rev. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harv. L. Rev. 731-37.) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553], EHRR at p. 562, para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 : 2001 ICR 847 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, ‘adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions’. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of ‘due process’.” 8. On perusal of the impugned order dated 18.11.2019, it appears that no reason whatsoever has been assigned as to why the petitioner’s applications seeking relaxation for retaining at least a single small arms has been rejected. Curiously enough, in the last two Lok Sabha Elections, the petitioner was allowed by the same Screening Committee to retain the arms or at least a single small arms. If there is no threat to public peace and tranquillity from a person, there is no reason as to why after considering his request, the Screening Committee would not allow him to retain at least a single small arms. Protecting the life of citizen is also the duty of the State/its functionaries. Moreover, such sweeping decision of the authorities also violates the personal liberty of a citizen enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If a person who is a law abiding citizen, has a reasonable threat to his life due to certain reason and he possesses licensed arms, his request for exemption from depositing his arms is required to be considered in proper perspective. 9. In the case of Md. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner & Ors. If a person who is a law abiding citizen, has a reasonable threat to his life due to certain reason and he possesses licensed arms, his request for exemption from depositing his arms is required to be considered in proper perspective. 9. In the case of Md. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner & Ors. reported in 1995 SCC On Line Pat 87, the Division Bench of Patna High Court has held as under:- “15. In brief we may state our reasons that as the particular mode for exercise of the power of the District Magistrate for passing an order or directing impounding of fire-arms of the respective fire-arm licence holders was indicated in different orders, including the orders dated 2.9.1974 and 21.9.1994, passed by the Chief Election Commissioner, but the direction for impounding of the fire-arms or the direction to deposit the same at the nearest Police Station or at the dealers of the fire-arms was hedged with different condition precedents indicated above, and only after complying with those condition precedent, the orders for deposit of the fire-arms should have been issued. But without complying with those condition precedents or in other words without following the modes provided for exercise of the powers or for issuing the orders, the impugned orders could have been issued in the mode suggested by the Chief Election Commissioner, but we are constrained to say that none of the condition precedents has been followed by the District Magistrates, as it is obvious from the discussions made herein before. The orders of the District Magistrate do not contain any reason as to why these impugned orders have been issued curtailing the fundamental rights of the citizens of the State, particularly of different fire-arms licence holders, in utter violation of the fundamental rights enshrined under, Article 21 of the Constitution. The object of Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon the personal liberty by the Executive save in accordance with law and in conformity with the provisions thereof. To put it differently, before a person is deprived of his life or personal liberty the procedure established by law must be strictly followed and must not be departed from to the disadvantage of a person affected.” 10. To put it differently, before a person is deprived of his life or personal liberty the procedure established by law must be strictly followed and must not be departed from to the disadvantage of a person affected.” 10. In the present case, since the impugned decision as contained in memo No. 1277 dated 18.11.2019 is completely bereft of any reason, the same cannot be sustained in law and as such the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Screening Committee constituted for this purpose to take a fresh decision in this regard positively within a week from the date of this order keeping in view that the petitioner was exempted from depositing his arms during the Lok Sabha Election, 2014 and 2019. While taking the said decision, the Screening Committee is however at liberty to verify as to whether the petitioner has been involved in any criminal case concerning threat to public peace and tranquillity after the Lok Sabha Election held in the months of April-May, 2019. 11. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction.