ORDER : RAVI S.DHAVAN, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order of the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi dated 16 September, 1980 in appeal no. 19 of 1980, Lalloo Singh v. State. It is a matter under the Arms Act. 2. An Incident of 2 November, 1979 at the village of the Petitioner, Lalloo Singh, being a subject matter of a police report saw his arms license suspended and the weapon, a 315 bore rifle No. 750984 against license No. 3069, surrendered at police station Ait, District Jalaun. 3. The base for the suspension of the license is the police report of 2 November, 1979. The report is to the effect, that there was an unlawful assembly and damage to public property when a number of villagers attempted to breach a dam for diverting the canal waters. The police report of 2 November, 1979, on the face of it, makes It clear that in the text of the report the name of the Petitioner Lalloo Singh is not mentioned. The names of other villagers have been mentioned but not of the Petitioner Thus, the report In Itself does not disclose that the Petitioner Lalloo Singh may have had any part in being specifically identified as a person who was part of an unlawful assembly or that he was the cause for damage to public property. 4. A post script at the end of the report mentions the name of Lalloo Singh and the number of the arms license of the Petitioner with recommendation that it be cancelled. This, thus, is the beginning of the controversy which occasioned a show cause notice to the Petitioner calling upon him to explain why his license ought not to he cancelled and requiring him to deposit his arms with the police station. The Petitioner complied with the order in depositing his fire arms with the police station concerned. 5. The Petitioner submitted his explanation which is not relevant now as the Additional District Magistrate who considered she matter in Case No. 182 of 1979 after hearing the Petitioner and the State, on the recommendation of the police, was intimated that the Superintendent of police, Jalaun has no objection to the return of the fire arm, and in effect, the continuation of the license. This should have been the end of the controversy. 6. This should have been the end of the controversy. 6. Inevitably a time came when the license had to be renewed. On this the District Magistrate, Jalaun on 15 April, 1980, on the basic of the police report of 2 November, 1979 passed an order that in fie public interest the arms license of the Petitioner should not be renewed. 7. The Petitioner then appealed to the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi that the facts be correctly noticed and further that it should be appreciated that once the police itself had recommended that the license may not be suspended and the fire arm be restored, there was no occasion, for the licensing authority not to renew the license of the Petitioner. But the learned Commissioner was of the view that as the District Magistrate has a discretion to renew or not to renew, he did not consider it appropriate that he must interfere with the discretion of the District Magistrate as, it was not unreasonable for the licensing authority not to renew an arms license. 8. There is a manifest error in the decision of the learned Commissioner of Jhansi Division. Having appreciated the facts correctly, he came to a wrong conclusion. Once, the Commissioner, Jhansi Division came to the view that the renewal of an arms license was a matter of discretion, then it is understood that a power which has been conferred by statute, is to be used objectively, in matters like these and every discretion exercised must be on a rationale basic. 9. It was an incorrect view of the Commissioner to have come to the conclusion that once an arms license is up for renewal before a licensing authority, the discretion is such that It could grant a license or reject it. 10. Such an exercise of power has been questioned or scrutinised In the present writ petition. This is the very purpose for which an appeal has been provided before the Commissioner when an arms license may not be renewed. The Case for not renewing a license must be for a cause. 11. 10. Such an exercise of power has been questioned or scrutinised In the present writ petition. This is the very purpose for which an appeal has been provided before the Commissioner when an arms license may not be renewed. The Case for not renewing a license must be for a cause. 11. In the present Case, the District Magistrate opened up a file which had been closed, but without basis The Incident of 2 November, 1979, was an aspect which was not to be reopened, once the District Magistrate had had it closed upon being satisfied on the police report that the arms license of the Petitioner need not be suspended and his fire arm be returned. 12. Thus, the appellate order dated 16 September, 1980 of the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, to the effect, that the District Magistrate has an unfettered power to renew or not to renew a license suffers from a manifest error apparent on the face of the record, on which this Court has already commented. Thus the order In appeal dated 16 September, 1980 passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi is quashed and set aside. 13. The District Magistrate, Jalaun is under a direction of this Court by a mandamus to consider the application seeking the renewal of the arm license of the Petitioner without his attention being drawn to the incident of 2 November, 1979 and then pass appropriate orders on the application for the renewal of the arms license which will be treated as pending. The District Magistrate, Jalaun is to pass his orders within 15 days of a certified copy of this order being placed before him by the Petitioner. The period between the order of the District Magistrate, Jalaun by which he look the decision dated 15 April, 1980 and until the time he considers the renewal of the license will be treated as a period during which the application seeking the renewal has been pending and no late fee is to be required from the Petitioner. 14. Petition allowed with costs.