BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.:–In this application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashment of the order dated 22.06.1995/01.07.1995 passed in Arms Case No. 02 of 1995 whereby respondent no.3-the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapracum- Licensing Authority has cancelled the Arms Licence No. 113 of 1989 relating to D.B.B.L. Gun No. 15302 of the petitioner. The petitioner has further sought for quashment of the ex parte order of the Appellate Authority (respondent no. 2) dated 08.04.2006 passed in Arms Appeal No. 33 of 1995-96 (Upendra Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Bihar) whereby the Commissioner affirmed the order of the District Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority. The petitioner prays for issuance of mandamus to the respondent-authorities to restore the Arms Licence No. 113 of 1989.

2. The case and claim of the petitioner is that to protect his life and property from invaders, the petitioner applied for Arms Licence of a D.B.B.L. Gun and, after proper police verification, Arms Licence No. 113 of 1989 was issued in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner has stated on oath that the said Arms was never misused and the same was kept by the petitioner only for the self defence of his person and property. No criminal prosecution was ever instituted against the petitioner prior to a case of property dispute. The petitioner and his family members were monitoring the ongoing construction on Plot No. 113 under Khata No. 227. At the same time, Tara Singh and others came heavily armed and forcefully stopped the construction. On protest, Tara Singh and others made indiscriminate firing and caused injury to several persons. The petitioner escaped and went to the police station and lodged Ishuapur P.S. Case No. 109 of 1993 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act besides other ancillary sections of the Indian Penal Code.

In retaliation, one Ram Ayodhya Singh lodged Ishuapur P.S. Case No. 110 of 1993 against the petitioner and others alleging therein that his nephew Tara Singh had purchased the above referred Plot No. 113, under Khata No. 233, area 2 Katha 10 Dhur. The petitioner and others were forcefully making construction on that and when Ram Ayodhya Singh and others stopped, the petitioner and others made indiscriminate firing. However, Ayodhya Singh escaped and lodged FIR.

This Ishuapur P.S. Case No. 110 of 1993 was main consideration by respondent no. 3 to cancel the licence of the petitioner besides report of the Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra submitted therewith.

It would be worth to notice that Ram Ayodhya Singh, the informant of Ishuapur P.S. Case No. 110 of 1993, was examined during trial (in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 1995, a copy of the judgment at Annexure-1) and stated that, in fact, he had not lodged any FIR. His signature was obtained on blank papers. The trial resulted in acquittal.

3. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Saran, dated 31.12.1994, at Annexure-B, would reveal that he had simply forwarded the report of the Officer-in-Charge, Ishuapur (Annexure-B). The Superintendent of Police, Saran reported as follows:—

“In the matter of cancellation of licence of accused Upendra Singh (the petitioner) of his double barrel gun, the Investigating Officer has submitted a proposal which is enclosed in original. The accused has wrongfully used his gun and caused injury. The accused is hot headed man and off and on takes out his gun.”

4. The Investigating Officer reported that the petitioner wants to use his gun on simple quarrel but he could not cite any instance wherein the petitioner was found using his gun nor any witness came forward to substantiate the aforesaid statement.

5. It is worth to note that there is no allegation in the FIR of Ishuapur P.S. Case No. 110 of 1993 that the petitioner had used his licensee gun or had caused injury to anyone. Thus, the report of the authority on which the Licensing Authority relied was based on conjectures and s