Amitav K. Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard the counsels.
(2.) The petitioner has submitted that he was carrying on his business at Dimapur, Nagaland and on his application all India Licence No.6514.NL/DMR for N.P. Bore Pistol was issued by the Deputy Commissioner cum District Arms Magistrate, Dimapur, Nagaland. That subsequent to winding up of his business in Nagaland, he has been residing and carrying his business at Giridih. That he is residing in a rented premises, as would be evident from Annexure2. That Annexure6 series are the invoices of the Commercial Tax Department and papers regarding his business at Giridih. That after shifting to Giridih, he had applied for reregistration of his arms licence before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih on 04.06.2013 in accordance to the provision of Rule 62(3) of the Arms Rules, 1962. The said application was verified by the Deputy Commissioner cum District Arms Magistrate, Dhanbad. As per verification report this permanent address is mentioned and shown at H.N.503, Sita Niwas, Shri Ram Vatika, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, DistrictDhanbad (Annexure4). That vide memo No.150/LAW/Giridih dated 19.02.2014 the petitioner was informed that since his place of residence is within the district of Dhanbad he should get the registration of his arms licence done at Dhanbad. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih has failed to appreciate that the petitioner has shifted his residence to Giridih for a period exceeding 30 days in terms of the provision of Rule 62(3) of the Arms Act, 1962. The registration of arms licence is required for his personal safety and that of his family members. Learned counsel has stated that the genunity of the said arms was verified by respondent No.2 which is admitted in para 16 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/State. That refusal of reregistration of the licence by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih is against Rule 62(3) of the Arms Rules, 1962 and prays that the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih be directed to reregister the licence as per the rules.
(3.) Mr. Jai Prakash, learned A.A.G. has submitted that the Central Government is empowered to issue an all India arms licence in terms of ScheduleII of Arms Rules, 1962. That the petitioner had applied for the arms licence in 2013 before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and it would be evident from Annexure2, of the writ application, wherein he has stated that he has been residing in the rented premises at the given address at Giridih. That a letter was sent at the said address but it was returned with endorsement that no person of such name resides at the said address. The address of the petitioner was verified by the Circle Officer, Dhanbad who submitted the report that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Dhanbad. It is argued by the learned counsel that there is no plausible explanation as to why the petitioner did not apply for reregistration of the arms at Dhanbad which is situated barely 60 k.m. from Giridih. That the petitioner is a holder of all India licence and there is no irreparable loss or injury likely to be caused to the petitioner if he gets his licence reregistered at Dhanbad. It is submitted that Rule 62(3) does not mandate the authority to renew the licence because the authority has to consider various factors and the rule is for enabling the authority to keep a track regarding the place and location where the arms are kept.;