IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14311 of 2009 1. SURENDRA RAI S/O RAM GOPAL RAI VILL- DORIGANJ, P.O. RASALPURA, P.S. DORIGANJ, DISTT. CHAPRA (SARAN) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE HOME SECRETARY SECRETARIATE, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SARAN AT CHAPRA 3. THE ARMS MAGISTRATE SARAN AT CHAPRA 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SARAN AT CHAPRA ----------- 3. 28.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the respondents which is not on record but the Court permitted the counsel for the State to make submission from his copy. The petitioner applied for an Arms licence. The Superintendent of Police recommended that he did not deserve a licence since he already was possessed of a fire arm. The District Magistrate asked the petitioner to respond when the explanation given by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. The stand of the respondents is in teeth of the provisions of Section 3 of the Arms Act, which clearly permits a person to possess three weapons at a given point of time. This can be only subject to the conditions of prohibition incorporated in the Act. Let the respondents consider the arms 2 licence application of the petitioner within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. No other ground part from that noticed above has been urged on behalf of the State for denial of licence to the petitioner. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)