IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2283 of 2006 ENAMUL HAQUE,SON OF MD. YASIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MADHOPUR, P.S.-TURKAULIA, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN--- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM LICENCING AUTHORITY, EAST CHAMPARAN 3. THE S.P.,EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 4. THE S.D.O. SADAR, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 5. THE ARMS MAGISTRATE, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 6. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, TURKAULIA P.S. WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 7. THE S.D.P.O. SADAR, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner: -Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava, Senior Advocate. For the State:- Mr. K.K.Singh,Standing Counsel No.IX 2 22.1.2009 Originally the prayer of the petitioner was for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 the District Magistrate ,East Champaran to grant him licence of Revolver. It is stated by Junior Counsel to Standing Counsel No.IX that the petitioner having licence for another fire arm, he was not entitled to have arms licence for revolver and accordingly his prayer has been rejected.In view of aforesaid, the prayer of the petitioner is to quash that order of the Collector dated 30.9. 2005. It is contended by Mr.Shri Prakash Srivastava,Counsel for the petitioner that the ground taken to refuse the arms licence is in - 2 - teeth of the judgment of this Court in case of Arun Kumar Vs. State of Bihar ( 2000 (4) PLJR 552). As the petitioner had statutory remedy of appeal, I am not inclined to enter into the merit of the case. Petitioner if so advised may take recourse to the remedy of appeal and take such point as is available to him in law. Needless to state that in case such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Application stands dismissed with the observation aforesaid. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad,ACJ.) A.kumar