Honble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—The petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition challenging the order dated 14.9.2007 passed by respondent No. 2 nearly after the lapse of 16 months without assigning any plausible reasons whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition.

2. Petitioners fire-arm licence was cancelled vide order dated 9.8.2007 against which an appeal was preferred on 3.9.2007 and the respondent No. 3 while admitting the appeal refused the prayer for staying the order dated 9.8.2007 cancelling the fire-arm licence of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had clean antecedents and was never involved in any criminal case. However, rival political parties on account of enmity got the proceedings initiated under Section 107/116 of Cr.P.C. Which were later on dropped and has also placed reliance upon two decisions of this Court in the case of Mohd. Haroon v. District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar, 2003 (Suppl) ACC 759 and Ashok Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (55) ACC 183.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

5. It is admitted to the petitioner that the appeal against the order dated 14.9.2007 cancelling the licence of his fire-arm is pending before the respondent No. 2 since 2007 and till date no final order has been passed. Despite the impugned order dated 14.9.2007, passed around 16 months back, the petitioner did not show any sense of urgency in challenging the said order. There was no justification for the petitioner to have waited for such a long time. As noticed earlier the appeal is already pending before the respondent No. 3 for final adjudication, therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in the matter after such a long delay.

6. The cases of Mohd. Haroon v. District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar (supra) and Ashok Singh v. State of U.P. and others (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner have no bearing on the case in hand. In the said case writ petition was filed against the final order passed by the Appellate Authority but in the present case the appeal is still pending for final adjudication and the impugnedc order refusing interim relief was passed around 16 months back, therefore, the reliance upon the aforesaid judgments by the petitioner, in my opinion is misplaced.

7. Yet, there is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. In Para 21 of the writ petition it has been mentioned as follows :

"That the respondent No. 2 has not still decided the appeal filed by the petitioner even than he is not so interesting, now the impugned orders passed by the respondents have come into knowledge to the SHO concerned who has also making a pressure to deposit the fire-arms.The petitioner also received knowledge on 11.8.2008 that Sri Satendra Bhushan Singh also obtained stay order dated 25.10.2007 passed by this Honble Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52126 of 2007 so the petitioner also came to seek the same remedy by this Honble Court."

8. Besides this, learned counsel for the petitioner has also admitted that the petitioner has not yet deposited his fire-arm with the concerned authority, despite the cancellation order passed on 9.8.2007. The Section 21 of the Arms Act provides as follows :

"21. (1) Any person having in his possession any arms or ammunition the possession whereof has, in consequence of the expiration of the duration of a licence or of the suspension or revocation of a licence or by the issue of a notification under Section 4 or by any reason whatever, ceased to be lawful, shall without unnecessary delay deposit the same either with the officer in charge of the nearest police station or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, with a licenced dealer or where such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in a unit armory."

9. Thus, it is clearly evident from the plain reading of the aforesaid section th