Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The present writ application has been filed in the year 2004 for a direction to the respondents including District Magistrate, Rohtas to consider his application for grant of a non-prohibited bore arms licence, application for which the petitioner had filed in 1994. When this case was taken up today, the learned counsel for the State stated that a counter affidavit had been filed and served on the petitioner but neither the petitioner nor the Court records reveals the same. However, the copy of the said counter affidavit being available with the State Counsel has been perused. With consent of both the parties, the writ application is being taken up and is being disposed of at this stage itself. 3. Firstly, it is to be noticed that the petitioner had applied for a non-prohibited bore arms licence in the year 1994 and till 2004 nothing was done on his application. From the counter affidavit which the Court has perused, it is apparent that it is only in 2004 and probably after writ was filed then the petitioners application was proceeded with. This is a matter of grave concern. Where a citizen has a statutory right to make an application for an arm licence, it goes without saying that he also has a right to have the same considered expeditiously. In this connection, I may refer to Sec. 13 under Chapter III of the Arms Act. Sec. 13(2) enjoins upon the licensing authority to call for a report of the Officer-in-Charge of the nearest Police Station on the application so made and the officer is obliged to send the report within the prescribed time. Ordinarily, the expression "prescribed time" would mean time prescribed by the Rules but conspicuously the Rules made under the Act are silent in this regard. This, to my mind, does not mean that there being no time limit the authorities can sleep over the matter and wait for the High Court to wake them from their deep slumber. The prescribed time would mean the time prescribed by the licensing authority to submit the report. In absence of any such stipulation, it would be necessary to submit the report and could not be more than one month in any event. The prescribed time would mean the time prescribed by the licensing authority to submit the report. In absence of any such stipulation, it would be necessary to submit the report and could not be more than one month in any event. It is, thus, to be seen that once an application is made for grant of arms licence then the licensing authority must within a month call for a report from the nearest Police Station. If the report is not received within one month then sub-section (2A) of Sec. 13 proviso provides that the licensing authority has not to wait ad infinitum but can proceed in absence of any such report. This, to my mind, again indicates that the application has to be considered expeditiously and not left to gather dust. 4. There is yet another reason for this Court to point out the duty of the licensing authority because if there is no time limit put and the matter is left ad infinitum, it would only lead to wrongful and unconstitutional practices which in civilized country or societies cannot be countenanced. 5. Now coming to the ground as disclosed for not granting the iicence. Unfortunately no order refusing to grant licence has been appended. To my mind that is of no consequence as the grounds are disclosed in the counter affidavit itself. The order is obviously not enclosed because that would put the respondent-District Magistrate in an embarrassing situation because obviously, the order could only be passed after receipt of the enquiry report which, as indicated above, was received in 2004 that is ten years after application has been made. 6. The only ground for refusing is that petitioner had made an application to the District Magistrate, Rohtas and enquiry report shows that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Kaimur and Rohtas is his Sasural. Petitioner, in his writ petition, has himself stated that he resides at his Sasural at Rohtas and had, accordingly, made the application. The question, therefore, is whether a person can make an application for grant of arms licence only to the licensing authority who has jurisdiction over his permanent residence which is not the requirement of law. Petitioner, in his writ petition, has himself stated that he resides at his Sasural at Rohtas and had, accordingly, made the application. The question, therefore, is whether a person can make an application for grant of arms licence only to the licensing authority who has jurisdiction over his permanent residence which is not the requirement of law. To my query, the learned State Counsel could not point out to any provision either in the Arms Act or in the Rules framed thereun­der which made it obligatory on an appli­cant to make an application of arms li­cence within whose jurisdiction he perma­nently resides. On the contrary, Rule 51 of the Arms Rules, 1962 read with the statutory Form A being the form of the application for licence clearly shows legis­lative intent otherwise. Rule 51(b) is quoted lereunder: (b) may be presented by the appli­cant in person or sent through the me­dium of post office or otherwise, to the licensing authority, as far as possible having jurisdiction in respect of the place where he ordinarily resides or has his occupation; 7. From the above provision of Rule 51(b), it would be seen that the application has to be made to the licensing authority as far as possible having jurisdiction in respect of the place where he ordinarily resides or has his occupation. This ex­pression, the Legislature have used, in contradistinction to permanent residence. The Legislature were fully aware that a person may be a permanent resident of a particular place but he could ordinarily re­side at another place for various reasons including business, service or occupation. It is where he would ordinarily reside he would keep his arms and not necessarily at his permanent residence. Similarly, if we are to refer to various clauses of Form A, which is the form for making application for arms licence, it would be seen that in the said application, the applicant has to give his present address and the nearest Police Station and his permanent address and the nearest Police Station. This provi­sion clearly shows that his present ad- dress and permanent address may be twc distinct and different places and may be different districts or even different ^States within India. If Legislature intended tha the licence can only be granted by the licensing authority within whose jurisdic tion the applicant permanently resided ther the Legistrate would have so spoken. This provi­sion clearly shows that his present ad- dress and permanent address may be twc distinct and different places and may be different districts or even different ^States within India. If Legislature intended tha the licence can only be granted by the licensing authority within whose jurisdic tion the applicant permanently resided ther the Legistrate would have so spoken. I the Legislature have not so spoken rathei the statutory intendment being otherwise it is not open to the District Magistrate tc opine contrary to the provisions. 8. Thus, in my view, rejecting appli­cation for grant of arms licence only or the ground that the petitioner was not per­manent resident of the district of the li­censing authority is wholly without juris­diction and is de hors the provisions o Arms Act and the Rules made thereunder It is a non est consideration. In such e situation, i am left with no alternative bu to direct the District Magistrate, Rohtas tc reconsider the application of the petitionei for grant of arms licence and pass appro­priate orders. He shall be obliged to com­municate the order to the petitioner as well. All this must be done within twc months on production of a copy of this order before the District Magistrate. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ application is allowed.