IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4183 of 2010 1. Birendra Singh S/O Late Mahadeo Singh R/O Vill.- Raghunipur, P.O.- Sakhuan, P.S.- Udwantnagar, Distt.- Bhojpur At Arrah 2. Ram Awdhesh Singh S/O Shri Ramji Singh R/O Vill.- Raghunipur, P.O.- Sakhuan, P.S.- Udwantnagar, Distt.- Bhojpur At Arrah Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Deptt. Of Home, Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Arrah, Bihar 3. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Bhojpur, Arrah, Bihar 4. The District Arms Magistrate, Bhojpur, Arrah 5. The Police Inspector, Arrah Circle, Distt.- Bhojpur, Arrah 6. The Officer Incharge, Udwantnagar Police Station, Bhojpur ----------- 4 18.07.2011 Heard Mr. Nachiketa Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned A.C. to G.A. 8 for the State. The two petitioners are aggrieved by the notice made in the prescribed form-A as provided under the Arms Act,1959 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for grant of Arms Licence placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is contended that although an application was filed by two petitioners herein, namely, Birendra Singh and Ram Awdhesh Singh before the prescribed authority under the Act for grant of Arms Licence and which also was duly recommended initially by the Inspector of Police, Sadar, Arrah and other police authority but subsequently the recommendation was withdrawn inter alia on grounds that there appeared no special reasons for grant of licence. Similar comments can be found in the application of both the petitioners herein. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State enclosing identical orders of refusal of grant of licence issued by 2 the District Magistrate, Bhojpur bearing Memo No. 499 and 500, both dated 31.03.2010 in relation to the two petitioners herein. The District Magistrate has reiterated similar grounds as taken by the police authorities for reversal of recommendation of the case of the petitioners. The District Magistrate also holds that there is no special reason for grant of licence to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act submits that this cannot be a ground for refusal of licence. The grounds being extraneous and foreign to the stipulations as set out in Section 14 of the Act, cannot be sustained. Learned counsel further contends that as the orders bearing Memo No. 499 dated 31.3.2010 and Memo No. 500 dated 31.03.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur, was never communicated to the petitioners at any stage hence they could not be impugned in the present writ petition. Accepting the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners that the orders placed at Annexures-A and B of the counter affidavit rejecting the request of the petitioners for grant of licence, was never communicated to the petitioners, this Court, considering the remedy of appeal available to the petitioners under Section 18 of the Act, disposes of the writ petition with a liberty to challenge the impugned orders placed at Annexures-A and B of the counter affidavit before the appellate authority prescribed under the Act. 3 As the orders of rejection of grant of licence has been communicated to the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition, the appellate authority would entertain the appeal and dispose of the same on merits after condoning the delay, provided the appeal is filed by the petitioners herein within a period of 30 days from today before the appellate authority. Needless to add that the appellate authority would dispose of the appeal expeditiously and preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)