Harish Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. P. N. Shahi, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Ms. Shweta Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The State is represented by Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General-3.

2. The petitioner, by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought a direction to implement the order dated 30.07.2019 passed in Arms Appeal No. 70 of 2019 by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna to restore the Arms Licence No. 278 of 2004.

3. The short matrix of the case is, that though the application of the petitioner for restoration of the arms licence was rejected by the learned Collector, Patna vide order dated 06.04.2019, however, the same has been set aside by the learned court of the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division vide order dated 25.06.2019/17.07.2019 and the case of the petitioner was remanded back to the District Magistrate, Patna for fresh consideration. However, the learned District Magistrate, Patna vide his order dated 21.09.2020, despite being remand, rejected the case of the petitioner for restoration of arms licence, thus, the same has been challenged by way of Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2021.

4. At this juncture, submission has been advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the State that the order impugned dated 21.09.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna is assailable before the Divisional Commissioner, hence the writ application is not maintainable.

5. However, the aforesaid contention has been vehemently refuted by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and submission has been made that the learned District Magistrate, Patna who has rejected the case of the petitioner vide order dated 21.09.2020 is at present also holding the post of Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, hence filing an appeal against the said order would be a futile exercise. This Court finds substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner.

6. It is submitted that the arms licence bearing No. 278 of 2004 was granted in favour of the petitioner way back in the year 2004 and the same had been continuously renewing time to time till 2019-21. However, in the year 2019, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Barh vide Memo No. 198/2019 dated 12.01.2019 submitted a report that in course of raid conducted at the house of the petitioner, who was found absconder in a criminal case, one N.P. Bore rifle and 32 live cartridges were seized, apart from other currency notes and jewelleries; accordingly a seizure list was prepared. On the aforesaid police report, as contained in memo no. 1348 dated 22.02.2019, notice was served upon the petitioner directing him to file his reply within 3 days as to why not his arms licence be cancelled.

7. In response thereto, the petitioner filed a detailed show-cause reply dated 19.03.2019, the copy of which is annexed to the writ application and he categorically denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence. He submitted that the arms and ammunitions which were seized was legally licensed and it has never been misused.

8. The licensing authority however, passed the order cancelling the arms lincence of the petitioner which was assailed by the petitioner in Arms Appeal No. 70/2019 before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. The learned Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division having considered the submissions of the petitioner as also taking note of the mandate of law, as settled by this Court in various judgments, has set aside the order of the District Magistrate vide his order dated 25.06.2019/17.07.2019 and remanded the matter to the District Magistrate for fresh consideration. While remanding the matter, it has been made clear that while passing any order of cancellation the authorities are under obligation to assign specific reason for the same and in