IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1247 of 2009 ANJANI KUMAR JHA, SON OF LATE DR. SURENDRA JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – MALCHAK, P.S. HARPUR, DISTRICT – MUNGER, AT PRESENT ANJANI KUMAR JHA, ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT, NEW DELHI. ……… PETITIONER, Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH AFZAL AMANULLA, THE HOME COMMISSIONER, SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 2. LOKESH KUMAR SINGH, THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT OF MUNGER, MUNGER (BIHAR). 3. BRAJESH MALHOTRA, DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DIVISION OF MUNGER, MUNGER. …….. CONTEMNORS/OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 07/ 16.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. After several adjournments and orders by this Court in contempt jurisdiction, finally the Divisional Commissioner, Munger has passed final order on 12th October, 2010 and the same has been brought on record as Annexure-G to the supplementary show cause filed on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. Annexure-G shows that the Commissioner is of a view that certain details relating to permanent residence of the petitioner and up-to-date good conduct certificate (Swakchhata Praman Patra) is required for taking the decision on merits and on account of absence of materials on the aforesaid two points, the application of the petitioner for extending the area of arms license 2 from Bihar to all India has been rejected as not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of available materials itself the application should have been allowed and there was no requirement under the Arms Act or the Rules to submit further materials regarding permanent residence of the petitioner or for obtaining fresh and up-to-date certificate of good conduct. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the aforesaid requirements besides other requirements are prescribed under policy decision of the State Government according to a circular of the Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar dated 15th February, 2006 contained as part of Annexure-10 to the additional supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner himself. Although there has been delay in disposal of the petitioner’s application by the concerned authority, we do not find it to be a fit case to proceed further in contempt jurisdiction as substantially the order of the Writ Court and the Division Bench stand complied with. 3 It goes without saying that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Munger or the various requirements prescribed in the circular dated 15th February, 2006, he would be at liberty to seek appropriate relief by pursuing appropriate proceeding before competent forum. DKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Mridula Mishra, J.)