JUDGMENT M.P. Varma, J. The petitioner, who is a resident of village Semara, police station Bhabhua in the district of Rohtas obtained a 1jcence from the District Magistrate at Varanasi (U.P.) for possession of tire arms under the Arms Act, 1959, The licence no. is 3380/75 and the petitioner purchased a rifle which was duly endorsed on the licence. 2. Some time after the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, registered at police station Bhagwanpur in the district of Rohtas, in which, apart from others, there were allegations of outraging the modesty of a woman and that in the occurrence some of hit! companions had used the various arms for terrorising the said woman and the other witnesses. The Officer in charge of the Bhagwanpur police station in course of investigation of the case seized the rifle of the petitioner and submitted a report to the District Magistrate at Rohtas for the cancellation of the licence. 3. The District Magistrate on receipt of the report from the police asked the petitioner to show cause vide annexure (2') to the application as to why the licence granted to him be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted explanation, but the District Magistrate, Rohtas, on examining the same, by order dated 22.8.83, cancelled the licence of the petitioner. vide annexure 5'. The order is purported to have been passed under section 17 of the Arms Act. The petitioner made an appeal against the order of the District Magistrate to the Commissioner of the Division under section 18 of the Arms Act. Having lost the appeal as well (vide annexure 8') the petitioner has now invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. He has prayed for quashing of the orders contained in annexure 5 and 8 and also that the aforesaid licence of the petitioner may be restored and the rifle in question be delivered to him. 4. The petitioner claims to be a registered forest contractor. It is his case that the range of the forest, where he works, is infested not only with wild animals but also humming with extremist and criminals and a fire-arm like rifle is quite indispensible for him for the safety of life and property. The allegation made in the criminal case against him has also been denied. It is his case that the range of the forest, where he works, is infested not only with wild animals but also humming with extremist and criminals and a fire-arm like rifle is quite indispensible for him for the safety of life and property. The allegation made in the criminal case against him has also been denied. But the main ground of attack of the orders impugned is that the District Magistrate as well as the Commissioner of the Division took into consideration some extraneous materials and facts not mentioned in the notice of show cause (Vide annexure 2) served on the petitioner. It has also been urged that the allegations made before the first authority in the proceeding may be relevant to some extent for consideration of a case, but it is beyond the jurisdiction of the appellate authority to introduce new facts not earlier noticed. It has been argued that the notice in question, annexure 2 did not contain all the material detail on which the licence was cancelled and the reasons considered being beyond the facts stated in the notice the impugned orders contained in annexure ‘5’ and ‘8’ are bad. 5. The jurisdiction of the District Magistrate, Rohtas excercised under section 17 of the Arms Act, in cancelling the licence of the petitioner is not in dispute. Counsel for the State fairly agreed to the view that material facts relating to the case should have been incorporated in the notice (annexure 2) in asking the petitioner to show cause why the licence should not be cancelled. It has also been conceded that the District Magistrate has taken into consideration some facts not mentioned in the notice of show cause issued to the petitioner. I further find that the Commissioner too sitting in appeal, has travelled far beyond In taking into consideration many new materials introduced at the appellate stage. 6. In my view it is not open for the appellate authority to base its findings on new facts and circumstances, which were not brought at the earlier stage before the first authority bearing the case. It is equally correct that the full facts relating to charge should have been incorporated in the notice, calling upon the petitioner to show case, absence of which is prejudicial. Consequently both the orders aforementioned vitiate and are fit to be quashed. 7. It is equally correct that the full facts relating to charge should have been incorporated in the notice, calling upon the petitioner to show case, absence of which is prejudicial. Consequently both the orders aforementioned vitiate and are fit to be quashed. 7. In the result, I quash both the orders contained in annexure 5 and 8. The petitioner is entitled to get back his rifle and he may move the authority concerned for the release of the same. It will however, be open for the State Respondent to take action afresh in accordance with law. In the circumstances, I do not propose to pass order for costs. Lalit Mohan Sharma, J :- I agree Application allowed.