JUDGMENT Oak, J. - This petition u/Art. 226 of the Conititution is directed against an order, which has been described as an order cancelling the petitiner's licence. 2. According to the Petitioner's affidavit, he got from the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in 1954 a license for a revolver. The license was renewed up to the year 1957. In December, 1957, the Commr. of Bareilly directed the District Magistrate not to renew the Petitioner's license. On 25-12-1957 the Petitioner was served by the District Magistrate with a notice directing him to surrender his revolver and license at once. The two Officers passed the orders against the Petitioner without giving him an opportunity of hearing. The Petitioner has prayed that, the District Magistrate's order passed in December, 1957, should be quashed, and he should be directed to renew the Petitioner's license. 3. The Arms Clerk in the Collectorate, Shahjahanpur filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party. According to the counter affidavit, the Petitioner's license was renewed upto December, 1957, without obtaining concurrence of the Commr. According to R. 148 of UP Arms Rules, it was necessary to obtain concurrence of the Commr. for renewal of the license. Papers were therefore submitted to the Commr. for getting his concurrence. But by his letter dated 9-12-1957 the Commr. expressed his inability to concur in the renewal of the Petitioner's license. That was why the District Magistrate passed an order on 10-12-1957 that the license would not be renewed. 4. In para 6 of the affidavit it is stated that the Commr. or the District Magistrate passed the orders in question without giving the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard. This allegation has not been denied in the counter affidavit. I therefore take it that neither the Commr. nor the District Magistrate heard the Petitioner before arriving at the decision that the license should not be renewed. It was urged for the Petitioner that, the procedure adopted by the two Officers infringed fundamental rights of the Petitioner, and the Petitioner had a right of hearing before such orders could be passed against him. 5. These points were considered by me in a similar case (Civil Misc. Writ No. 3515 of 1957Parmeshwaridin v. District Magistrate Farrukhabaddecided on 10-3-1958). It was urged for the Petitioner that, the procedure adopted by the two Officers infringed fundamental rights of the Petitioner, and the Petitioner had a right of hearing before such orders could be passed against him. 5. These points were considered by me in a similar case (Civil Misc. Writ No. 3515 of 1957Parmeshwaridin v. District Magistrate Farrukhabaddecided on 10-3-1958). In that case it was held that, although a revolver is property, the District Magistrate was not bound to hear the Petitioner before deciding not to renew his license for a revolver. 6. The Petitioner suggests that his license was cancelled. But that is not the true position. The Petitioner's license was valid upto December, 1957. The two orders passed by the Commr. and the District Magistrate merely amount to a refusal to renew the license for 1958. There was no question of cancelling any license. 7. The District Magistrate has tried to justify the procedure u/R. 148 of UP Arms Rules. R. 148 has been quoted in Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit. Sub-R. (2) of R. 148 runs thus: The sanction of the Commr. must be obtained to the renewal of any license for a pistol or revolver unless the license was either originally granted with his concurrence u/R. 129, or has at some time been renewed with his concurrence. Provided that..................... 8. The validity of R. 148 of UA Arms Rules has been questioned. S. 17 of the Indian Arms Act confers upon the Central Government power to make rules on the subject of licences. No such power appears to have been conferred upon the State Governments by the Indian Arms Act. So R. 148 of UP Arms Rules has not got statutory force. Mr. K. C. Saxena appearing for the Petitioner is right in his contention that, R. 148 of UP Arms Rules is not a statutory rule. It does not however follow that, R. 148 in question is invalid. 9. The District Magistrate has also relied upon R. 41 of the Indian Arms Rules, 1951. Indian Arms Rules have been framed by virtue of powers conferred on the Central Government by S. 17 of the Indian Arms Act. R. 41 of the Indian Arms Rr. 1951 has got statutory force. Sub-R (1) of R. 41 lays down that, every authority empowered to grant a licence may refuse to grant or renew such license. Indian Arms Rules have been framed by virtue of powers conferred on the Central Government by S. 17 of the Indian Arms Act. R. 41 of the Indian Arms Rr. 1951 has got statutory force. Sub-R (1) of R. 41 lays down that, every authority empowered to grant a licence may refuse to grant or renew such license. So, u/R. 41 (1) Indian Arms Rules the District Magistrate of Shahjahanpur had discretion in the matter of renewal of the licence held by the Petitioner. 10 Sub-R. (2) of R. 41 Indian Arms Rules runs thus: Every such authority or the immediate official superior of such authority (not being the State Government), as the case may be shall exercise all powers and perform all duties conferred or imposed by these rules, subject to the control of the executive authorities to whom he is subordinate. 11. It is to be noted that, the power conferred by Sub R. (1) of R. 41 upon the District Magistrate to renew a licence is subject to the control of the executive authorities to whom he is subordinate. A District Magistrate is subordinate to Commr. of a Division. So a District Magistrate's discretion u/s ub-R. (1) of R. 41 is subject to the control of the Commr. R. 148 of UP Arms Rules is a direction on the lines of the control recognised by Sub-R. (2) of R. 41, Indian Arms Rules. So, although R. 148, UP Arms Rules is merely an administrative rule, the rule does not conflict with Sub R. (2) of the statutory R. 41, Indian Arms Rules. R. 148, UP Arms Rules, is valid as an administrative rule. U/R. 148, UP Arms Rules read with Sub-R. (2) of R. 41, Indian Arms Rules, it was open to the Commr. to give suitable directions to the District Magistrate of Shahjahanpur on the question of renewal of licence. 12. Annexure 2 to the counter affidavit contains copies of the Commr.'s letter dated 9-12-1957 and the District Magistrate's order dated 10-12-1957. In the course of his letter the Commr. wrote: I regret I am unable to concur in the case of those mentioned below at B, because I do not consider that their need for an automatic weapon is genuine. Their licences therefore need not be renewed. 13. The Petitioner's name was in list 'B', The Commr. In the course of his letter the Commr. wrote: I regret I am unable to concur in the case of those mentioned below at B, because I do not consider that their need for an automatic weapon is genuine. Their licences therefore need not be renewed. 13. The Petitioner's name was in list 'B', The Commr. indicated that he was not in favour of renewing licence for the Petitioner's revolver. 14. On receiving the Commr.'s letter, the District Magistrate passed the following order: A. C. (Arms Clerk) Inform the officials at B to deposit their weapons atonce. They will not be renewed. Show to C. M. also. 15. The District Magistrate decided not to renew the Petitioner's licence in view of the Commr.'s letter. Since the District Magistrate's power to renew the licence was subject to the control of the Commr. u/s ub-R. (2) of R. 41, Indian Arms Rules, the District Ma gistrate was powerless to grant a licence. The procedure followed by the Commr. and District Magistrate was in accordance with R. 41, Indian Arms Rules and R. 148 of the UP Arms Rules. 16. R. 41 (B) of Indian Arms Rules lays down that, an authority refusing to renew a licence shall record in writing his reasons for such refusal. In his order dated l0-12-1957 the District Magistrate did not explain why he was not renewing the Petitioner's licence. The Petitioner was evidently aware that, the District Magistrate's order was passed on the basis of the Commr.'s order dated 9-12-1957. So the District Magistrate's failure to give reasons in writing did not prejudice the Petitioner. 17. Since the orders passed by the Commr. and the District Magistrate were substantially in accordance with law, no interference u/Art. 226 of the Constitution is possible. The petition is dismissed with costs. 18. The stay orders dated 3-1-1958 and 16-1-1958 are vacated.