JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan 1. This writ petition is about the cancellation of a gun licence under the Arms Act, 1959. 2. The petitioner, Ravi Karan Singh, received an order of the District Magistrate, Banda dated 18 March, 1976, suspending his gun licence for a 12 bore single barrel, No. 22. The petitioner held it against licence No. 10/5/178 The order of the District Magistrate dated 18 March, 1976, is annexure 1'. This implies that the licence has been under suspension for 16 years. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, who, by his order 24 August, 1978 declined to interfere. The licence, thus, continues to remain suspended. 3. If the State version is to be accepted, the cause for suspension is that the petitioner misbehaved with the Amin who had gone to collect the revenue representing a sum of Rs. 846.40/- p. It is alleged that the petitioner threatened the Amin. The petitioner says that the amount was deposited on 8 March, 1976, that is, before the order by which the licence had been suspended. 4. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the State respondents this statement of fact that the revenue had been paid by the petitioner has not been specifically dented. The Court further notices that beyond this, not much credibility can be placed on this counter affidavit, for the simple reason that it has been affirmed by a peshkar to the Tehsildar. District Banda. The party respondent, in a reference to the context, is the District Magistrate, Banda. The counter affidavit is a discourtesy to the Court and the Chief Standing Counsel U. P. will ensure that such affidavits are not filed before the High Court. This Court expects that party respondents shall file their affidavits instead of deputing their clerks to do so on their behalf. The licence, aforesaid, cannot remain suspended for 16 years. The cause for which it was suspended is tang over. The complaint was, in effect, that the petitioner would not pay his dues to the Amin ; the dues have been paid. 5. Today it is too late in the day, regard being had to the facts and circumstance of this case, that the respondents will conduct an enquiry into a licence suspended in 1976, sixteen years later in 1992. 6. 5. Today it is too late in the day, regard being had to the facts and circumstance of this case, that the respondents will conduct an enquiry into a licence suspended in 1976, sixteen years later in 1992. 6. Thro, this Court quashes the order dated 18 March, 1978 by which the licence was suspended. The respondent No. 2 is under a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to return the gun of the petitioner, a 12 bore single barrel, No. 22 recorded in his licence No. 10/5/178, aforesaid, within fortnight of a certified copy being placed before him by the petitioner. The petitioner will be entitled to apply for the renewal of the arms license, aforesaid. The petition is allowed with costs. Petition allowed.