Patna High CourtCWJC/3428/2017disposed

Tuntun Prasad Gupta v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-11-05Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3428 of 2017 ====================================================== Tuntun Prasad Gupta, Son of Gopaljee Sah, resident of Vyahut Complex, Ward No. 3, Bihia Road - Piro, P.S. Piro, District - Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur

3. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. N.H.Khan, SC-1 Mr. Harun Kuraishi, AC to SC-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02/ 05-11-2018 Heard Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harun Kuraishi, learned AC to SC-1.

The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.10.2016 passed in Arms Licence Case No. 32 of 2016 passed by Respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Bhojpur -cum- licensing authority under the Arms Act, whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of licence for N.P. Bore Rifle has been rejected on the ground that the Superintendent of Police has not recommended for grant of arms licence to the petitioner.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has

Patna High Court CWJC No.3428 of 2017 (2) dt.05-11-2018 2/2 alternative remedy of appeal, under Section 18 of Arms Act, 1959, this Court is not inclined to interfere. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority, i.e., Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with application for condonation of delay, whereupon it is expected from the Appellate Authority to consider the application for condonation of delay in view of the fact that the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this Court.

Accordingly, the present writ application is disposed of.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/- U