IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.777 of 2004 NARESH YADAV @ NARO YADAV son of late Lala Yadav, resident of Bari Milki Rajgir, P.S. Rajgir, District Nalanda. ........Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Home Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 3. District Magistrate, Nalanda ....Respondents. ----------- 3 22.02.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition raising a grievance that the proceeding pending before the respondent District Magistrate as also before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna regarding cancellation of Arms Licence of the petitioner are not being disposed of. It appears that the petitioner was granted licence under the provisions of the Arms Act, which was subsequently cancelled by the respondent District Magistrate by an order dated 10.5.1990 passed in Arms Case No. 14/89. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred an appeal before respondent no.2, who by an order dated 24.8.1992(Annexure-1) remitted the matter to the respondent District Magistrate for passing a fresh order, after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. A grievance has been raised by the petitioner that despite the remand order, the respondent District Magistrate has not passed afresh order till date. Since the matter was not being disposed of by the District Magistrate, the petitioner claims to have filed Arms Appeal No. 127 of 2002 before the respondent No.2 seeking a direction upon the respondent District 2 Magistrate for disposal of the Arms Case No.14 of 1989. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has placed reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3 and he submits that the order passed by the respondent District Magistrate was perfectly justified in the given facts of the case and no interference is required by this Court. After having heard the parties, in view of submissions, it appears that after the remand order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, matter is still pending before respondent District Magistrate for fresh decision in accordance with law. Without going into the merit of the case, if the matter has not been disposed of till date, the respondent District Magistrate is directed to dispose of the matter by a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned under the provisions of law. The question whether the petitioner is entitled for restoration of Arms Licence is to be decided exclusively by the respondent District Magistrate. It is expected that respondent District Magistrate shall try to conclude the proceeding as early as possible within the period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order. The application stands disposed of. M.Rahman ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )