Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Petitioner before this Court is a holder of fire-arm licence which is stated to have been granted in his favour by the Additional District Magistrate, Rampur vide order dated 15.5.2006 and was in respect of a Prohibited Bore DBBL-12 Bore bearing No. 101809-49. Since the licence of the petitioner was to expire in the year 2009, he made an application for renewal thereof. His application for renewal was not being considered, he, therefore, approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13428 of 2009. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 6.3.2009 permitting the writ petitioner to make a representation before the District Magistrate who in turn was required to pass appropriate order on the renewal application of the licences. The District Magistrate under the impugned order has held that the licence granted in favour of the writ petition by the Additional District Magistrate was illegal and, therefore, such licence cannot be renewed. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the definition of the District Magistrate as contained in Rules 2(f) of the Arms Rules, 1962 submits that the District Magistrate will include the Additional District Magistrate and therefore, the order impugned in the present writ petition is based on misreading of Rule 2(f) of the Arms Rules, 1962.

3. Reliance has also been placed on the provisions of Section 23(2), Cr.P.C. for the purpose of alleging that it is within the competence of the District Magistrate to issue special orders distributing his work amongst Additional District Magistrate including the work of grant of fire-arm licence. He submits that the District Magistrate, Rampur had passed an order distributing the work of Licensing Authority in favour of Additional District Magistrate as is recorded in the impugned order. Therefore, the grant of fire-arm licence in favour of the petitioner by the Additional District Magistrate cannot be faulted with.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition.

5. For the purposes of resolving the controversy it would be worthwhile to reproduce the meaning of Magistrate as contained in Section 2(ff) of the Arms Act, 1959 which reads as follows :

“Magistrate” means an Executive Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

6. The Act does not contemplate any other officer to discharge functions of the District Magistrate under the Act nor does it contemplate delegation of powers to the Additional District Magistrate.

7. The power to grant the licence for fire-arm flows from Section 13 of the Arms Act and it specifically provides that an application for grant of fire-arm licence shall be made before the Licensing Authority which means an officer or authority empowered to grant or renew licences as per the rules made under the Act, and includes the Government.

8. Rule 3 read with Rule 4 of the Arms Rules, 1962 framed under the Arms Act provides that for the classification of arms and the authorities competent to grant licence qua various categories of arms to be as per the Schedule I and II to the Rules respectively. The word licensing authority has not been defined under the Rule, 1962.

9. It is admitted to petitioner that he has been granted non-prohibited bore gun licence within the category specified in Entry III of the Schedule I to the Rules, 1962 and that the District Magistrate would be the licensing authority for the purpose in view of Entry 2 of Schedule II to the Rules, 1962.

10. Definition of the District Magistrate as contained in Rule 2(f) of the Arms Rules, 1962 reads as follows :

"(i) ...............

(ii) in relation to any district or part thereof, an Additional District Magistrate or any other officer specially empowered in this behalf by the Government of the State Government.

(iii) ...............

(iv) ...............

(v) ..............."

11. Thus the