IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15401 of 2008 1. GIRJA PRASAD, S/O SRI MAHABIR PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE MAHIMA CHAK, P.S. HARNOUT, IN THE DISTRICT OF NALANDA. 2. RAMASHISH PRASAD ALIAS RAMASHISH MAHTO, S/O LATE MEGHU MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE- CHAURIA, P.S. HARNAUT, DISTRICT- NALANDA. -PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA, BIHARSHARIEF. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NALANDA, BIHARSHARIEF. 4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, RAHUI POLICE STATION, RAHUI, DISTRICT-NALANDA. -RESPONDENTS FOR THE PETITIONERS : M/S Y.C.Verma, Sr.Adv. & Binit Kumar FOR THE RESPONDENTS : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, A.C. to AAG-4 2 04.02.2009 Petitioners possessed arms licences no.3 of 1983 and 67 of 1983. They possessed arms on the basis of those licences. The arms were found in possession of other persons and those persons possessing the arms were apprehended. A proceeding was initiated for revocation of the licence and the petitioners were given liberty to file their show cause. In the show cause their plea was that while they were coming back after attending the marriage ceremony, in the way while attending the call of nature handed over the arms to Rajju 2 Singh and Vijay Paswan temporarily. The plea of the petitioners was considered by the District Magistrate and found not tenable. For coming to the aforesaid conclusion the District Magistrate observed that those persons are accused in case of murder and absconding in the case. Petitioners preferred appeal and raised the same point which did not find favour with the Divisional Commissioner. Aforesaid orders of the District Magistrate, and the Commissioner are being impugned in the present writ application and petitioners seek its quashing. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that temporary handing over of the arms does not amount to breach of any conditions of licence and, therefore, the District Magistrate erred in revoking the petitioners’ licence and the Commissioner ought not to have dismissed the appeal. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Hardeo Narayan Singh Versus. State of Bihar & Ors. ; A.I.R. 1985 Patna 3. Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General 4 appears on behalf of the State. 3 I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel and the authority relied on is clearly distinguishable. The petitioners’ plea that arms were temporarily handed over has not been accepted by the authority. For coming to the aforesaid conclusion they have referred to the antecedent of the persons to whom the arms were handed over. In my opinion, the grounds set forth for revoking the licences is good ground and same does not call for interference by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. I do not find any merit in this application. It is dismissed in limine. (C.K. Prasad, ACJ.) AAhmad