NAGENDRA RAI, J.

1. In Cr.W.J.C. No. 561/94 the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 12-7-1994 of the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Arms Case No. 84/ 94 (Annexure-2) asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence for holding rifle granted to him under the provisions of the Arms Act be not cancelled for violation of the provisions as contained in S. 14(3)(b) of the Arms Act and suspending the licence during the pendency of cancellation proceeding with immediate effect.

2. In Cr.W.J.C. No. 418/94 the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 19-3-94 passed by the Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea, in Arms Appeal No. 12 of 1993-94, affirming the order dt. 10-7-1994 of the District Magistrate, Purnea, in Case No. 42 / 93, by which the petitioner licence granted under the Arms Act to hold pistol has been suspended.

3. The only question for determination is as to whether these two applications are maintainable as criminal writ jurisdiction cases or not.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the State were heard on the aforesaid point and the maintainability matter is being disposed of by this order.

5. The petitioners in both the aforesaid cases were granted licence under the provisions of the Arms Act and by the impugned order the licence has been suspended and in one case (Cr.W.J.C. No. 418/94) proceeding for cancellation is going on. Both the applications have been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which vests extra-ordinary original jurisdiction in the High Court to issue a writ, direction and order in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by Part-III of the Constitution and for any other purposes. Article 226 of the Constitution does not make any classification as to the nature of the proceeding and if the condition for granting relief to a person is satisfied in a particular case, then the relief has to be granted irrespective of the nature of the proceeding. The High Court, for the purpose of dealing with the applications under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has framed rules, which are contained in Chapter XXI-C of the Patna High Court Rules. Rule 3 of the said Rules runs as follows :-

"R. 3 : Applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution shall be registered as Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases (C.W.J.C.) or Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Cases (Cr.W.J.C.), as the case may be."

6. Application under Article 226 of the Constitution shall be registered as Civil Writ jurisdiction Cases (C.W.J.C.) and Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Cases (Cr.W.J.C.), as the case may be. Thus, the Rules provide only that the applications filed under Art. 226 shall be classified in two categories, i.e., civil writ jurisdiction case and criminal writ jurisdiction case. In what cases civil writ jurisdiction case should be filed and in what cases criminal writ jurisdiction case has to be filed is not mentioned in the Rules for the simple reason that it is neither possible nor desirable to classify all the cases which come before this Court in the aforesaid two categories. The question is as to whether the particular case falls under the category of C.W.J.C. or under the category of Cr.W.J.C. depends upon the nature of the right infringed and the relief claimed for. The words civil proceeding or criminal proceeding have not been defined anywhere and, as such, their meaning have to be found out with reference to the case laws on the point. The nature of the tribunal, which is vested with power to grant relief in a particular situation cannot be a decisive factor in determining the nature of the proceeding. If a civil right of a person, either conferred by civil law or by statutory provision, is infringed and the aggrieved person claims a relief against the said infringement, then the nature of the proceeding would be a civil one. Generally, when a proceeding imposes fine or any punishm