IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1505 of 2010 1. SUBESH CHANDRA PANDEY S/O LATE BALRAM PANDEY R/O MOH- BAL RAM BHAWAN, BUDHNATH ROAD MANDIR ROAD, P.S+ADAMPUR, DISTT- BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR 3. ARMS MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR ----------- 2. 29.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Assailing the order dated 9.1.2010 cancelling the Arms licence which was valid till 31.12.2009 only on the ground that the petitioner did not purchase a fire Arm till date, learned counsel submits that the petitioner could not do so for unavoidable reasons but intends to purchase the same no sooner that the licence is renewed. It is next submitted that the alleged absence of a threat perception can be no ground to deny renewal of the licence. Counsel for the State raises an objection with regard to the alternative statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner against the impugned order. Rule 55 of the Arms Rules provides for a limitation of 30 days for preferring an appeal. The writ petition has been filed on 28.1.2010 which is 2 within 30 days of the impugned order. Relying upon the observation of the Supreme Court in 1996(6) SCC 199 (Danda Rajeshwari Vs. Bodavale Hanumayanna), the Court holds that the writ petition having been filed within the period of limitation, if the petitioner files an appeal within 30 days from today, the appellate authority shall decide the same without going into the issues of limitation, preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date of presentation of such memo of appeal before him. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)