ORAL ORDER Heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner prays for quashing of letter dated 26.2.2010 contained in memo no.1246 issued by the District Arms Magistrate, Patna whereby he observed that it is not possible to renew or acknowledge the Arms Licence no. 05/1990(Sahebganj) issued by the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Sahebganj in view of letter dated 28.11.2003 contained in memo no.5581, issued by the Home Secretary, State of Jharkhand. 3. The petitioner while serving as District Education Officer, Sahebganj applied for arms licence which was duly granted by the then District Magistrate, Sahebganj which after bifurcation of erstwhile State of Bihar falls in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner subsequently shifted to Bhagalpur and his arms licence was renewed up to 2008. A photo copy of his arms licence and renewal endorsements are annexed at Annexure-1. The petitioner submits that in the year 2009 he sustained heart attack and as such he could not submit his licence for renewal. The petitioner thereafter shifted to Patna for better treatment and began to reside at Mohalla-Haroon Nagar Sector-2, Phulwarisharif, Patna. After recovery from his ailment, the petitioner filed an application before the District Magistrate, Patna for renewal of his arms licence on 16.1.2010 which was rejected by order dated 26.2.2010 contained in memo no.1246 in view of letter dated 28.11.2003 contained in memo no.5581 issued by the Home Secretary, State of Jharkhand. 4. The petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate completely misconstrued the letter of the Home Secretary, State of Jharkhand and erred in law in rejecting the renewal application on the basis of the said letter. The letter of Home Secretary dated 28.11.2003 contained in memo no.5581 is addressed to all Divisional Commissioners of Jharkhand State, all Deputy Commissioner, Jharkhand State and all Superintendent of Police, Jharkhand State and not addressed to any functionaries of State of Bihar. The letter in nut shell states that arms licence for whole of State of Bihar issued from such district of erstwhile State of Bihar, which now falls in the State of Jharkhand, would be valid only in the State of Jharkhand. The letter no where states and rightly so, that licence issued from such district which now fall in the State of Jharkhand would not be binding in the State of Bihar. The letter no where states and rightly so, that licence issued from such district which now fall in the State of Jharkhand would not be binding in the State of Bihar. After bifurcation it is for the State of Bihar to take a decision and make a pronouncement whether licenses granted from such territory of erstwhile Bihar which does not fall within the State of Bihar, would be valid for its territory or not. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties. 6. The letter dated 28.11.2003 contained in memo no.5581 issued by the Home Secretary, State of Jharkhand addressed to the functionaries of State of Jharkhand states that the arms licence issued for the whole of State of Bihar from the erstwhile districts of Bihar, which now falls in the State of Jharkhand, would be binding only in the State of Jharkhand. Relying upon the aforesaid letter, the District Arms Magistraste refused to renew the licence, as it was issued from Sahebganj district, which now falls in Jharkhand after bifurcation on 15.12.2000. The petitioner is aggrieved by order refusing to renew his licence. 7. Before I decide the issue it would be necessary to notice section 84 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 (in short the Act, 2000). 8. Sections 84 of the Act saves acts of government functionaries of such districts which after bifurcation has fallen in the other State unless and until the Government repudiates the same for some valid cause. It would be relevant to quote section 84 of the Act, 2000 as under: “84. Territorial extent of laws- The provisions of Part II of this Act shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies, and territorial references on any such law to the State of Bihar shall, until otherwise provided by a competent legislature or other competent authority be construed as meaning the territories within the existing State of Bihar before the appointed day”. 9. This court in the case of Manoj Sahay Vs State of Bihar, reported in 2002(1) PLJR 666 has observed that laws which was holding field before the appointed day of bifurcation of State of Bihar will continue in all territories after bifurcation till successor State makes any changes in it. Further more, the Court in case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Further more, the Court in case of State of Jharkhand Vs. M/s Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coal Pvt Ltd, reported in 2002(2) PLJR 991 observed that the law applicable to State of Bihar will continue to apply in all territories which are at present under State of Jharkhand unless and until such laws are modified. In my view, the applicability of section 84 of the Act in the context would also extend to acts validly done by the Government officials posted in districts now falling in bifurcated State of Jharkhand. In case of Singhbhum Homeopathic Medical College Vs State of Jharkhand, reported in 2002(2) PLJR 80 the court observed that no statutory notification will continue to hold field unless and until it is superseded by another notification in successor State, it will continue to apply to institution in successor State. 10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussions, I hold that statutory acts performed by Government officials in erstwhile territories of State of Bihar now falling in the State of Jharkhand, would hold good unless and until such acts are annulled for valid reasons in accordance with provisions of the Act, 2000. It would be beyond the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to observe that arms licence granted from Sahebganj district would not be valid in Bihar which decision could only have been taken by Government of Bihar under the Act, 2000. It is for the government, if law so permits, to have come out with such notification whether it would acknowledge arms licence validly issued from such district which falls now in the State of Jharkhand. 11. In the result, this writ application is allowed. 12. The impugned order dated 26.2.2010 contained in memo no.1246 issued by the District Arms Magistrate, Patna refusing to renew the arms licence of the petitioner on the basis of letter dated 28.11.2003 contained in memo no.5581 issued by the Home Secretary, State of Jharkhand is quashed. The petitioner would file a fresh application for renewal of his licence which would be considered on its own merit without being influenced by letter dated 28.11.2003 contained in memo no.5581 issued by the Home Secretary, State of Jharkhand.