JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner holds an arm licence, which is No. 1 of 1977, Dholpur, and this is in respect of a revolver. A case came to be registered against the petitioner, which is No. 237/84 and this is pending before the CJM Dholpur. In this case his revolver was seized, but subsequently on an order passed by this Court the revolver was directed to be delivered to the petitioner on certain conditions. The petitioner executed a bond in accordance with the directions of this court and the revolver was delivered to him. Thereafter the Collector, Dholpur gave a notice to him to show cause as to why the licence of the revolver should not be cancelled. The Collector also directed that the petitioner should surrender the revolver with its licence and this order has also been complied with. Now, proceedings for the cancellation of the licence are pending before the Collector and District Magistrate, Dholpur. On 6th July, 1989 the District Magistrate, Dholpur in the proceedings for cancellation of the licence observed that two cases were pending against the petitioner and that a case is pending before the CJM, Dholpur and during the pendency of that case the proceedings for cancellation of licence shall remain suspended and the accused petitioner would come to clean his weapon once in every three months. 2. This order by which the proceedings in the cancellation case have been stayed is challenged in this petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that only one case is pending against him and in that case he did not use the revolver. According to him, it has been wrongly mentioned in the order that two cases are pending. Facts of only one case have been given in the impugned order. It is contended that the District Magistrate should decide about the cancellation of the licence one way or the other and should not keep the matter pending till the disposal of the criminal case in which the weapon had not been used. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor was asked to furnish the particulars about the criminal cases pending against the petitioner, but he has not been able to obtain the particulars. Even the file of the case pending before the District Magistrate, Dholpur has not been obtained. 4. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor was asked to furnish the particulars about the criminal cases pending against the petitioner, but he has not been able to obtain the particulars. Even the file of the case pending before the District Magistrate, Dholpur has not been obtained. 4. The District Magistrate has the power to cancel or suspend the licence for arms and he has further powers to confiscate the weapon and if considered proper the court proceedings can also be dropped. Suspending the proceedings till such time as the criminal case is decided would not serve the purpose, specially when the weapon has not been used in that case. In the circumstances the order of staying the proceedings before the District Magistrate cannot be said to be appropriate. The Collector and District Magistrate Dholpur ought to proceed with the case and take a decision whatever it might be, according to the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. This petition is therefore accepted. The order dated 6th July, 1989 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate. Dholpur is set aside. He is directed to take proceedings in the case, wherein notice for cancellation/suspension of licence has been issued and decide the matter at an early date.Petition accepted. *******