Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. In Cr. W. J.C. No. 561/94 the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12-7-1994 of the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Arms case No. 84/94 (Annexure-2) asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence for holding Rifle granted to him under the provisions of the Arms Act be not cancelled for violation of the provisions as contained in Sec. 14 (3)(b) of the Arms Act and suspending the licence during the pendency of cancellation proceeding with immediate effect. 2. In Cr.W.J.C. No. 418/94 the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19-3-1994 passed by the Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea, in Arms Appeal No. 12 of 1993-94, affirming the order dated 10-7-1994 of the District Magistrate, Purnea, in Case No, 42/93, by which the petitioners licence granted under the Arms Act to hold Pistol has been suspended. 3. The only question for determination is as to whether these two applications are maintainable as criminal writ jurisdiction cases or not. 4. learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State were heard on the aforesaid point and the maintainability matter is being disposed of by this order. 5. The petitioners in both the aforesaid cases were granted licence under the provisions of the Arms Act and by the impugned order the licence has been suspended and in one case (Cr.W.J.C. No. 418/94) proceeding for cancellation is going on. Both the applications have been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which vests extra ordinary original jurisdiction in the High Court to issue a writ, direction and order in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant to and certiorari for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by Part-III of the Constitution and for any other purposes. Article 226 of the Constitution does not make any classification as to the nature of the proceeding and if the condition for granting relief to a person is satisfied in a particular case, then the relief has to be granted irrespective of the nature of the proceeding. The High Court, for the purpose of dealing with the applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has framed rules, which are contained in Chapter XXI-C of the Patna High Court Rules. The High Court, for the purpose of dealing with the applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has framed rules, which are contained in Chapter XXI-C of the Patna High Court Rules. Rule 3 of the said Rules runs as follows: Rule 3 : Applications under Article 226 of the Constitution shall be registered as Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases (C.W.J.C.) or Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Cases (Cr.W.J.C), as the case may be. 6. Application under Article 226 of the Constitution shall be registered as Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases (C.W.J.C.) and Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Cases (Cr.W.J.C), as the case may be. Thus, the Rules provide only that the applications filed under Article 226 shall be classified in two categories, i.e., civil writ jurisdiction case and criminal writ jurisdiction case. In writ cases civil writ jurisdiction case should be filed and in what cases criminal writ jurisdiction case has to be filed is not mentioned in the Rules for the simple reason that it is neither possible nor desirable to classify all the cases which come before this Court in the aforesaid two categories. The question is as to whether the particular case falls under the category of C.W.J.C. or under the category of Cr.W.J.C. depends upon the nature of the right infringed and the relief claimed for. The words civil proceeding or criminal proceeding have not been defined anywhere and, as such, their meaning have to be found out with reference to the case laws on the point. The nature of the tribunal which is vested with power to grant relief in a particular situation cannot be a decisive factor in determining the nature of the proceeding. If a civil right of a person, either conferred by civil law or by statutory provision, is infringed and the aggrieved person claims a relief against the said infringement, then the nature of the proceeding would be a civil one. Generally, when a proceeding imposes fine or any punishment under the criminal law that would be a criminal proceeding. The proceeding for maintenance of law and order or for binding down a person who is a danger to maintenance of peace and order or a proceeding for habeas corpus against the State will also fall under the category of a criminal proceeding. 7. In the case of I.S.A.L Narayan Row and Anr. The proceeding for maintenance of law and order or for binding down a person who is a danger to maintenance of peace and order or a proceeding for habeas corpus against the State will also fall under the category of a criminal proceeding. 7. In the case of I.S.A.L Narayan Row and Anr. V/s. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas and Anr, -- the question was as to whether a decision of a revenue authority would be a civil proceeding within the meaning of Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India. Dealing with the said matter, the Apex Court held as follows; ...The expression civil proceeding is not defined in the Constitution, nor in the General Clauses Act. The expression in our judgment covers all proceedings in which a party asserts the existence of a civil right conferred by the civil Law or by statute, and claims relief for breach thereof. A criminal proceeding on the other hand is ordinarily one in which if carried to its conclusion it may result in the imposition of sentences such as death, imprisonment, fine or forfeiture of property. It also includes proceedings in which in the larger interest of the State, orders to prevent apprehended breach of the peace, orders to bind down persons who are a danger to the maintenance of peace and order, or orders aimed at preventing vagrancy are contemplated to be passed. But the whole area of proceedings, which reach the High Courts is not exhausted by classifying the proceedings as civil and criminal. There are certain proceedings which may be regarded as neither civil nor criminal. For instance, proceeding for contempt of Court, and for exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction against lawyers or other professionals such as Chartered Accountants may not fall within the classification of proceedings, civil or criminal. But there is no warrant for the view that from the category of civil proceedings, it was intended to exclude proceedings relating to or which seek relief against enforcement of taxation laws of the State. The primary object of a taxation statute is to collect revenue for the governance of the State or for providing specific services and such laws directly affect the civil rights of the tax-payer. The primary object of a taxation statute is to collect revenue for the governance of the State or for providing specific services and such laws directly affect the civil rights of the tax-payer. If a person is called upon to pay tax which the State is not competent to levy, or which is not imposed in accordance with the law which permits imposition of the tax, or in the levy, assessment and collection of which rights of the tax-prayer are infringed in a manner not warranted by the statute, a proceeding to obtain relief whether it is from the tribunal set up by the taxing statute or from the civil court would be regarded as a civil proceeding. The character of the proceeding, in our judgment, depends not upon the nature of the tribunal which is invested with an authority to grant relief, but upon the nature of the right violated and the appropriate relief which may be claimed. A Civil proceeding is therefore one in which a person seeks to enforce by appropriate relief the alleged infringement of his civil rights against another person or the State, and which if the claim is proved would result in the declaration express or implied of the right claimed and relief such as payment of debt, damages, compensation, delivery of specific property, enforcement of personal rights, determination of status etc. 8. Thus, from the aforesaid decision, it is clear that though the civil and criminal proceedings are not defined, there is a clear-cut distinction between the two proceedings. A criminal proceeding is ordinarily one in which if carried to its conclusion it may result in the imposition of sentences such as death, imprisonment, fine or forfeiture of property. A criminal proceeding also includes orders for maintenance of law and order and the orders aimed at preventing vagrancy. On the other hand, the civil proceeding is one in which a person approaches the court against the alleged infringement of civil right against any person or the State and gets a declaration and, if claims are proved, gets a declaration of his right claimed and relief. Payment of debt, damages, compensation, delivery of specific property, enforcement of personal rights and determination of status are some of the case. which are falling under the category of civil proceeding. 9. Payment of debt, damages, compensation, delivery of specific property, enforcement of personal rights and determination of status are some of the case. which are falling under the category of civil proceeding. 9. The question is as to whether the proceeding for cancellation or suspension of licence under the Arms Act is a criminal proceeding or a civil proceeding. The licence is granted to a person under the provisions of the Arms Act, and by the alleged cancellation or suspension, he is deprived of his right to hold arms. In other words, his civil right conferred by statutory provision is taken away by the licensing authority. The provision dealing with cancellation or suspension or revocation of licence, as contained in Sec. 17 of the Arms Act, provides, inter alia, that the licensing authority shall record in writing the reasons for revocation or cancellation of licence and furnish to the licensee on demand the brief statement of the same unless the licensing authority in a particular case is of the opinion that it will not be in a public interest to furnish such statement. The nature of the proceeding is a quasi judicial one. Elaborate procedure provided for criminal trial or proceeding is not provided under the Act. Sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 17 contains a provision authorising a court convicting a holder of the licence for an offence under the Arms Act and Rules to suspend or evoke the licence. The suspension or revocation or cancellation are of two types, one passed by the authority under the Act and the other passed by the court at the time of convicting the holder of the licence. In the former case order is passed in a civil proceeding; whereas, in the latter case order is passed in a criminal proceeding. Thus, the proceeding for suspension or revocation of licence is a civil proceeding. In the former case order is passed in a civil proceeding; whereas, in the latter case order is passed in a criminal proceeding. Thus, the proceeding for suspension or revocation of licence is a civil proceeding. By the cancellation or suspension of the licence, the holder of licence under the Act is deprived of his right/privilege to hold the licence conferred on him by statute, and his case being allowed in the writ jurisdiction against the suspension or cancellation, he is entitled to keep the arm and licence, which is a property and, in that view of the matter, there is no difficulty in holding that the nature of the proceeding for cancellation or suspension of licence under the provisions of the Arms Act is a civil proceeding and Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case will lie against the suspension, cancellation or revocation of licence and, as such, the present applications, filed as Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Cases, are not maintainable. Similarly, the proceedings for cancellation of licence or suspension of licence under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act or other relevant Acts for the aforesaid reasons are civil proceedings. 10. The question as to whether civil writ jurisdiction case or criminal writ jurisdiction case will lie in this Court also arises in the case filed against the order passed in a confiscation proceeding under the E.C. Act, Customs Act and the other relevant Acts. If the confiscation of the property has been made by way of punishment in a criminal proceeding, then the criminal writ jurisdiction case will lie, otherwise, the nature of the case/proceeding will remain as civil proceeding. By order of confiscation, the person concerned is deprived of his right to hold property which is conferred on him either by a civil law or by a statutory provision and the procedure followed in such cases is not of a criminal proceeding. Similarly, so far as habeas corpus petition against the State is concerned, the nature of the proceeding would be of criminal one. 11. Whether the civil writ will lie or criminal writ will lie in a given case is a procedural matter and it is well settled that on the ground of technicalities the person should not be deprived of justice. Accordingly, both the applications cannot be dismissed and the opportunity has to be given to the petitioners to convert the application into a civil writ jurisdiction application. 12. Accordingly, both the applications cannot be dismissed and the opportunity has to be given to the petitioners to convert the application into a civil writ jurisdiction application. 12. In the result, it is held that present criminal writ applications are not maintainable and the petitioners are given opportunity to convert the same into a civil writ jurisdiction case within a period of one week from today. 13. I.P. Singh, J. I agree.