CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No 7335 OF 2008 *** In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India *** Ram Pravesh Sharma, son of Sri Lakhan Singh, resident of village – Surajpur, P S – Hulasganj, District – Jehanabad - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Commissioner, Magadh Commissionary, Gaya 3 The District Magistrate, Jehanabad 4 The District Arms Officer, Jehanabad 5 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jehanabad 6 The Officer-in-Charge, Hulasganj Police Station, District - Jehanabad - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Shailesh Kumar, Advocate For the respondents : Mr C L N Singh, SC1 *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH Navaniti Prasad Singh, J The petitioner was holding an arms licence. In 2006, in course of Panchayat Elections, public notices were issued to produce arms for inspection fixing various dates in which petitioner failed to produce his arms and his licence for inspection. He was, accordingly, issued notice as to why his arms licence be not cancelled. In the notice, it was also mentioned that petitioner has failed to get his licence renewed. This notice was issued on 18.04.2006. Petitioner responded by his show cause dated 01.05.2006 (Annexure-3) wherein he admitted that since 1991 that is for last 15 years, he had failed to get the licence renewed because he was busy in arrangement of marriage of his daughter. He stated nothing as to why he did not produce arms for inspection when directed. In view of the aforesaid, noticing that for 16 years, petitioner had not got his arms licence renewed and did not produce his arms for inspection including yearly inspection, the District Magistrate –cum- Collector, Jehanabad cancelled the arms licence and directed him to surrender the arms. This order was passed on 23.09.2006. The petitioner then preferred a belated 2 appeal without any satisfactory explanation for the delay before the Commissioner, Magadh Division, who, by his order dated 27.12.2007, dismissed the appeal, thus, affirming the order of the Collector. Having gone through the order impugned, I am not satisfied that a case is made out for interference in the facts and circumstances aforesaid. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Navaniti Prasad Singh) Patna High Court, The 08th April, 2008, N A F R, M E Haque/