Absence of specific threat perception is not a statutory ground for refusal of an arms licence.

The petitioner applied for a rifle license in 2011 before the District Magistrate (DM), Buxar, citing personal safety needs due to his grandfather being killed by Naxalites and a family servant being murdered in 2000.

Despite favorable police reports endorsing his character and clean antecedents, the DM rejected the application in 2016 on the grounds of insufficient annual income.

On appeal, the Divisional Commissioner remanded the case for fresh consideration.

In the second round, the DM again rejected the application on 25.11.2019, stating that the police report did not record a specific, imminent "threat perception" and merely "forwarded" the request without a specific recommendation.

The Divisional Commissioner affirmed this rejection on 20.06.2023.

The court applied Section 13 and Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Section 14 stipulates that a license can only be refused if the applicant is prohibited by law, of unsound mind, "unfit" for a reason, or if refusal is necessary for public peace/safety; notably, Section 14(2) expressly prohibits refusal based on lack of property.

The court also relied on Rule 12 of the Arms Rules, 2016, which requires the authority to assess the "genuine requirement" to protect life or property based on the police report and their own assessment.

The Court reasoned that the Licensing Authority's discretion is not unbridled and must stay within the four corners of the statute.

It found that the DM's reliance on the absence of a "threat perception" was an extra-legal requirement, as the Act does not necessitate imminent danger as a condition precedent for a license.

The Court observed that since the petitioner had clean antecedents and was not found "unfit" or a threat to public peace under Section 14, the refusal was groundless.

The Court critiqued the DM’s dismissive view of the police "forwarding" the report, noting that while a police recommendation isn't binding, the absence of one cannot be a ground for rejection if the verification is clear.

The Court held that the authorities prioritized "form over substance" by ignoring the petitioner's clean record and historical family security issues simply because the police report lacked the specific phrase "threat perception".

The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the Licensing Authority cannot supplement statutory grounds for refusal with subjective criteria like "threat perception".

The Writ Petition was allowed; the orders dated 25.11.2019 and 20.06.2023 were quashed. The District Magistrate, Buxar, was directed to consider the grant of the license to the petitioner within two months in light of the judgment's observations.