Ajit Kumar Singh, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22380 of 2019 ====================================================== Ajit Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ram Suresh Singh, resident of VillageFatehpur, P.S.- Nachha, Anchal- Raghopur, District- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. 3.

The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 4.

The Additional District Magistrate (Arms), Patna. 5.

The District Arms Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. 6.

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur. 7.

Sub-Divisonal Officer, Vaishali, Hajipur.

8.

The Station House Officer, P.S.- Raghopur, District Vaishali at Hajipur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajit Kumar Sinha, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Lalit Kishore, AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 18-11-2019 The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- "(i) For quashing the Rule-10 of the Arms Rules, 2016 as amended by Third Amendment Rules, 2018 made under the Arms Act, 1959 whereas as per amendment, the sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 is the ultra vires to the Constitution of India provides "The safety training course under the sub-rule (1) shall be conducted by the accredited trainer or master accredited trainer having licence u/e 39, who shall issue a certificate in form S1 to the applicant on successful completion of the said course."

Patna High Court CWJC No.22380 of 2019(2) dt.18-11-2019 2/2 (ii) For quashing of the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the respondent no.2, the District Magistrate, Vaishali whereas rejected the application of the petitioner on the basis of 3rd amended Rule of 2018.

(iii) For any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled under the eye of law."

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the instant petition with a liberty to file a fresh petition in accordance with law. Permission granted.

As prayed for, the petition stands disposed as having been withdrawn reserving liberty to file a fresh petition in accordance with law.

It stands clarified that the period for which the petitioner has been pursuing the present petition shall not be counted for the purpose of limitation.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Ashwini/DKS U