JUDGMENT 1. These intra-court appeals have been preferred as against the order passed by Single Bench of this Court in bunch of Writ Applications which were dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2008. Similar question arose In SAW No.362/2009, which has been decided by separate order but the factual matrix is similar. 2. The appellants were holding the licence for muzzle loading gun (in short, hereinafter referred to as 'ML Gun'). The licences were issued In favour of the appellants by the Tehsildar of the area, which was not questioned by the respondent State. There was no infirmity In the said grant. The appellants applied for change of the different weapon before the Addl. District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar who issued outside licences to the appellants, however, the District Magistrate, Ganganagar suspended the licences issued. The action was taken under Section 13(1) of the Arms Act (in short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1959'). Ultimately, the licences were cancelled by the District Magistrate on various grounds. Aggrieved thereby, appellants preferred appeals before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner Division, Bikaner. The appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner. The writ applications submitted before the Single Bench, the Single Bench has dismissed the writ applications, consequently, the antra-court appeals have been filed. 3. The case of the appellants was that licences were granted by competent authority and there was no infirmity in the order which was passed by the Addl. District Magistrate. Enquiry was also conducted while granting the ML Gun Licence, hence there was no necessity to conduct fresh police enquiry. It was only change of condition of the licence which was held by them. The Single Bench has dismissed the writ applications on the ground that District Magistrate has jurisdiction to grant the licence throughout the district or his area of jurisdiction. For the kind of the arm for which the licences were issued, the District Magistrate was empowered. The applications were not filed in terms of Rule 51 of the Rules framed under the Arms Act. Due verification was not done and the prescribed procedure was not followed. Validity of the period of arms licences issued In favour of several petitioners expired, thus, no interference could be made. 4. The applications were not filed in terms of Rule 51 of the Rules framed under the Arms Act. Due verification was not done and the prescribed procedure was not followed. Validity of the period of arms licences issued In favour of several petitioners expired, thus, no interference could be made. 4. Apart from the aforesaid, the Single Bench has also held that Sri Ganganagar is a border area, the police verification was required as per the Circular of the State Government, Department of Home dated 16.12.2006 by CID (Intelligence) and arms bore have been got changed by the arms holders on large scale by suppressing the material information and on wrong information and Addl. District Magistrate did not verify the fact and had no authority to do so. Considering the sensitivity of the situation, as it is border area, adjoining to the neighboring country, the Single Judge has declined to Interfere in such a sensitive matter, hence these intra-court appeals have been preferred. 5. Shri D.S. Gharsana, Shri M.K. Garg, Shri Hemant Jain and Shri C.S. Kotwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that it was only change in the condition of the licence and Addl. District Magistrate had the jurisdiction to do so as police verification was already made when the ML Gun Licence was issued, it was not necessary to be conducted thereafter. Thus, the learned Single Judge has erred in law in dismissing the writ petitions. The orders passed by the District Magistrate and Commissioner deserve to be quashed. 6. Shri Y.P. Khileree, Dy. Government Counsel appears on behalf of Shri I.S. Pareek, Addl. Government Counsel has supported the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Commissioner and the Single Bench and contended that the matter pertains to national security and Sri Ganganagar being a border town where large number of licences were obtained by surreptitious methods without due verification by the police as ordered by the State Government. The report of the Intelligence, which was necessary to be obtained in view of the State Government order dated 17.04.1996 was not obtained from the Intelligence Department. It was not a merely change in the condition of the licence but it was infant a grant of licence for holding a different kind of weapon for which it was necessary to follow the procedure. The applications were not submitted in the requisite form prescribed under Rule 51. It was not a merely change in the condition of the licence but it was infant a grant of licence for holding a different kind of weapon for which it was necessary to follow the procedure. The applications were not submitted in the requisite form prescribed under Rule 51. Apart from that, Addl. District Magistrate was not having jurisdiction as he was simply required to sign the licences issued by the District Magistrate, consequently the cancellation of the outside licences which were Issued by the Addl. District Magistrate was proper and no case of interference in intra-court appeals is made out. 7. First question, which requires consideration is whether it was necessary to file application in the prescribed format under Rule 51 of the Arms Rules, 1962. Rule 51 of the Rules of 1962 provides that every application for the grant of a licence shall be submitted in Form 'A', may be presented by the applicant in person or sent through the mode prescribed in Rule 51(b). Rule 51(c) prescribes that the application shall contain all such information as is necessary for consideration of the application and Rule 51(c) provides various requirements to be mentioned in the application. Rule 51(d) provides for No Objection Certificate to be obtained from the authority as provided in Rule 50. Rule 50 provides that if a licence having effect beyond the local limits of the authority of the officer granting, it shall not be granted for the transport or export or re-import of any arms or ammunition to a place without ascertaining that there is no objection to the grant of such licence on the part of the District Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area in which such place is situated. 8. Though a person can hold various arms under the licence or licences but when for fresh arm the licence was sought, in our considered opinion, Is required to follow the procedure as provided under rule 51 of the Arms Rules, 1962 which has not been followed in the instant case and licence was beyond local limits as such no objection from the District Magistrate was also necessary as per Rule 50. Apart from that, we find that it is a categorical stand of the respondents that the Addl. District Magistrate was authorised only to sign the licences granted by the District Magistrate. Apart from that, we find that it is a categorical stand of the respondents that the Addl. District Magistrate was authorised only to sign the licences granted by the District Magistrate. We find no fault in the decision rendered by the Single Bench and on consideration of Schedule II to Rule 4 of the Rules of 1962, the Single Judge has come to the conclusion that Addl. District Magistrate was not having any authority. Even if we ignore the ground of authority, it is apparent, ML Gun licences were granted much before, and it is not in dispute that while granting outside licences the police verification as required by the police intelligence as ordered by the State Government vide order 17.04.1996 considering the sensitivity of the border area of Sri Ganganagar was not followed. 9. Apart from that, we find that, in the memo of appeal which was preferred before the appellate authority, which is available in Special Appeal No.572/2009, even it was the case of the appellant that large number of persons have obtained licences in Illegal manner by submitting fabricated documents and thereafter the licences have been cancelled by the District Magistrate. 10. As due verification has not been made in terms of the State Government directives, we are not inclined to interfere In this sensitive matter of holding of the arms. The licences for the kind of weapons which were sought, could have been issued only after due police verification as per the State Government instructions contained in communication dated 17.04.1996. 11. Under Rule 53, which deals with variation of conditions of licences, it is open for the licensing authority to extend the area of validity specified in the licence. The said provision is not attracted In the instant case as for holding a different kind of weapon, the applications which were filed before the District Magistrate were not in proper format and due police verification was not made which was necessary to be made. 12. Coming to D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 362/2009, apart from dismissing the case on merit, the Single Judge has observed that there was availability of alternative remedy. That was also a ground for not interfering in the writ application. Though a separate order has been passed, it is not in dispute that the facts are same. 12. Coming to D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 362/2009, apart from dismissing the case on merit, the Single Judge has observed that there was availability of alternative remedy. That was also a ground for not interfering in the writ application. Though a separate order has been passed, it is not in dispute that the facts are same. We find that the appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Commissioner and after dismissal of the appeal, the writ petition was filed and consequently dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy apart from merit is hereby held to be inadvertent finding recorded by the Single Judge. However, on merit, no difference is made as the facts are similar to other cases decided by the common order which we have dealt with. 13. Liberty has already been granted by the Single Bench to the petitioners to apply afresh for licences which have been cancelled by the District Magistrate. We do not find any ground made out to Interfere in these intra-court appeals. 14. Counsel have submitted that the appellants may be permitted to approach the District Magistrate for sale of the weapons in case licenses are not granted in their favour. They are free do so in accordance with law. 15. In view of the aforesaid, the inter-court appeals are dismissed. No costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******