Arbitrary & Generalized Apprehension: Patna High Court Quashes Order Denying Increase Of Arms Trader's Quota Due To 'Celebratory Firing'

The Patna High Court quashed two orders of the Bihar Government refusing to increase the stock quota of a licensed arms dealer, holding that the rejection was arbitrary, based on irrelevant grounds such as "celebratory firing".

Justice Alok Kumar Sinha allowed the writ petition filed by M/s Premlata & Sons, run by proprietor Smt. Prem Lata Pandey, who holds a valid arms trade license since 2005, but was denied increase in stock on the ground of alleged “celebratory firing,” without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 

The court said that the Home department's "apprehensions" are too remote and generalized to constitute valid reasons for rejecting the petitioner's specific claim, particularly when both the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner had recommended enhancement after due consideration of local requirements.

Stating that the rejection was arbitrary the court said:

"In the present case, the Home Department, while rejecting the petitioner's request, has not demonstrated any material to displace the findings of the District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner. The reasoning of “sufficiency of stock” or “celebratory firing” does not 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 thus suffers from non-application of mind and arbitrariness"

The court further said that the State Government, while regulating trade in arms and ammunition, is entitled to take into account overarching considerations of public safety, law and order, and possible misuse of firearms, as permitted under the doctrine of reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

However, the court observed, such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or on the basis of vague and general apprehensions. It added:

"In the present case, the respondents have sought to justify the denial of enhancement to the petitioner on grounds of “celebratory firing,” misuse of arms in crimes, and indiscriminate hunting. While these phenomena may exist in society, the respondents have not placed any material to connect such activities with the petitioner or her business operations. On the contrary, as a licensed dealer, the petitioner is legally permitted to sell only to individuals holding valid arms licenses, whose use of ammunition is already subject to strict regulation and record-keeping". 

It added that 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 petitioner's statutory right to carry on licensed trade into an illusory formality.

The petitioner had sought enhancement of her quota of arms and ammunition, citing genuine demand from licensed holders in Patna. Both the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner conducted enquiries and recommended the enhancement. However, the Home Department rejected the request first in December 2016, and again in May 2024, citing reasons such as “sufficient stock in the district” and “celebratory firing.”

The petitioner argued that these reasons were irrelevant to her case, since she, as a licensed dealer, could only sell to licensed arms holders under strict regulation. It was also pointed out that dealers in smaller districts had been granted larger quotas, making the refusal discriminatory.

On the petitioner's right to seek enhancement, the Court said:

“A dealer holding a valid license under Form XII 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 Court emphasized that the District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner are the best-placed authorities to assess local law-and-order conditions and demand. Once they recommended enhancement, the State could not reject it without recording “cogent, relevant, and rational reasons.”

Rejecting the Home Department's reasons, the Court observed:

“Such reasons 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.”

It further found that arms dealers in smaller districts had been given higher quotas without justification, amounting to unequal treatment of the petitioner.

Holding the State's decision unsustainable, the Court quashed Memo No. 10169 (28.12.2016) and Memo No. 4848 (03.05.2024) of the Home Department. It directed the Government to enhance the quota of arms and ammunition for the petitioner in line with district-level recommendations within two weeks.

The plea was allowed. 

Case Title: M/s Premlata and Sons v. State of Bihar and Ors

Case No: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13539 of 2016

Click Here To Read/Download Order