G. P. MATHUR, J. This writ petition has been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to seize the gun of the petitioner No. 1 and to release the gun of petitioner No. 2 Wasim Beg. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they had gone to the State of Nagaland to earn their livelihood and during the period of their stay, they were granted firearm licence by the Deputy Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland that in the licences issued in favour of the petitioners, it is mention ed that the same are valid for all India ; that a news item was published in Dainik Jagran newspaper that the police of Shahjahanpur had found that some people were carrying forged firearm licences which purported to have been issued in Nagaland ; that the respondents are compelling those who are having fire-arm licence from Nagland to surrender their weapons ; that though the licence? of the petitioners have neither been suspended nor revoked but the police came to the residence of the petitioner No. 1 to seize his weapon and the gun of the petitioner No. 2 Wasim Beg was actually seized. The petitioners contend that as they hold valid fire arm licences and the same have not been suspended or revoked, the police has no authority to seize their weapons and the direction issued to the petitioner No. 1 to deposit his fire arm and the seizure of the weapon of petitioner No. 2 is wholly illegal and without any authority of law. 3. Though the learned standing counsel has submitted that the licences of the petitioners are forged and fictitious, the petition is being disposed of on purely legal grounds and without expressing any opinion about the genuineness of the licences as the learned standing counsel has not been given opportunity to file counter affidavit. 4. Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the act) provides that no person shall acquire, have in his possession or carry any fire arm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. 4. Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the act) provides that no person shall acquire, have in his possession or carry any fire arm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. Section 44 confers the Rule making power upon the Central Government and sub-section (2) (a) thereof provides that in particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such Rules may provide for all or any of the matters hereinafter enumerated, namely-the appointment, control and functions of licensing authorities including the areas and the categories of arms and ammunition for which they may graft licences. Rule 4 of the Arms Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred as the rules) provides that licence under Chapter II of the Act may be granted or renewed for such pur poses, by such authorities, in such forms and to be valid for such period and in such areas as are specified in Schedule II subject to such condition. ; as are specified in the Schedule and the licence. In Schedule II, Column 2 describes the purpose, Column 5 mentions the name of licensing authority and Column 6 describes the area for which licences can be granted. A perusal of this Schedule would show that a District Magistrate, as a licensing authority, can issue a licence for the district or his area of jurisdiction or any specified part of his jurisdiction. He has not been conferred the power to grant a licence which may be valid for whole of India or any specified part thereof. It is only the State Government in certain cases and the Central Government which have the authority to grant a licence which may be valid for whole of India. 5. The petitioners claim that firearm licences were issued in their favour by the Deputy Commissioner of Mon, which is in the State of Naga-land and photocopies of these licences have been filed as Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition. 5. The petitioners claim that firearm licences were issued in their favour by the Deputy Commissioner of Mon, which is in the State of Naga-land and photocopies of these licences have been filed as Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition. Section 2 (1) (d) of the Arms Act defines district Magis trate and in relation to any area for which a Commissioner of Police has been appointed, means the Commissioner of Police thereof and includes any Deputy Commissioner of Police, exercising jurisdiction over the whole or any part of such area, as may be specified by the State Government in this be half in relation to such area or part. Therefore the Deputy Commissioner of Mon, Nagaland, who has issued the licences in favour of the petitioners can be held to have been exercising the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate under the Act. Being a District Magistrate, he has only authority to issue a firearm licence for his district or the area of his jurisdiction or any specified part thereof. The Deputy Commissioner has therefore no authority to issue firearm licence which may be valid for whole of India. The endorsements in the firearm licence of the petitioners that the same was valid for all India is of no consequence and is wholly invalid. The licences granted by Deputy Commissioner, Mon even if it contains an endorsement that it is valid for all India cannot have any legal sanctity beyond the State of Nagaland. The petitioners are resident of Shahjahanpur and have acquired and are keeping in their possession weapons on the strength of the firearm licences issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Mon (Nagaland ). The aforesaid licences are wholly invalid in the State of U. P. in law, the petitioners would be deemed to be having no firearm licence in their favour in the State of U. P. 6. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act lays down that any police officer may demand the production of his licence from any person who is carrying any arms or ammunition. Sub-section (2) lays down if the person upon whom a demand is made, fails to produce the licence or to show that he is entitled by virtue of the Act or any other law to carry such arms or ammunition, the officer concerned may seize from that person the arms, or ammunition which he is carrying. Sub-section (2) lays down if the person upon whom a demand is made, fails to produce the licence or to show that he is entitled by virtue of the Act or any other law to carry such arms or ammunition, the officer concerned may seize from that person the arms, or ammunition which he is carrying. Section 21 (1) lays down that any person having in his possession any arms or ammunition the possession whereof has, by any reason whatever, ceased to be lawful, shall without unnecessary dealy deposit the same either with the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, with a licensed dealer. Therefore, the petitioners who do not held valid firearm licence in the State of U. P. were duty bound to deposit their weapons in accordance with Section 21 and a police officer is also entitled to seize their firearms in these circum Dances, no exception can be taken to the action initiated by the police of Shahjahanpur against the petitioners. 7. Shri Raraendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Arms Act only requires that before a person acquires 01 have in his possession any firearm, he must hold a licence for this purpose and the scheme of the act does not lay down that the effectiveness of the licence can be curtailed with respect to any geographical area as there is no provision to that effect in the Act itself. In my opinion, the contention raised by the learned counsel no substance, Section 44 of the Act gives power to the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act which includes the jurisdiction of the licensing authorities with regard to the area for which they may grant a licence. Rule 4 has been framed by the Central Government in exercise of power conferred by Section 44 of the Act and this Rule prescribes the power of the various licensing authorities to grant licences with regard to the nature of the weapon and the geographical area for which they would be valid. It is well settled that Rules have the same force as a provision in the main Act In State of U. P. v. Babu Ram, AIR 1961 SC 751 . Subba Rao, J. quoted with approval the1 following state ment of law in Maxwell. It is well settled that Rules have the same force as a provision in the main Act In State of U. P. v. Babu Ram, AIR 1961 SC 751 . Subba Rao, J. quoted with approval the1 following state ment of law in Maxwell. "on the interpretation of statute" : "rules made under a statute must be treated for all purposes of cons truction or obligation exact y as if they were in the Act and are to be of the same effect as if contained in the Act, and are to be judicially noticed for all purposes of construction or obligation. " 8. Again in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Mis. Hind Stones, AIR 1981 SC 711 , the court speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. held that a statutory Rule, while ever subordinate to the parent statute is otherwise to be treated as part of the statute and as effective. It was further held that statutory Rules made pursuant to the power entrusted by Parliament are law made by Parliament within the meaning of Article 302 of the Constitution. Therefore the provision of Rule 4 and the Schedule has to be treated as part of the Statute and has to be given full meaning. In view of the clear mandate of this Rule a firearm licence granted t y Deputy Commissioner in the State of Nagaland cannot be held to be valid and effective outside the State of Nagaland. 9. Shri Asthana has next submitted t hat the petitioners have a funda mental right to hold a firearm licence and the action of the respondents directing them to deposit their weapons or seizing the same is wholly illegal. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision given by a learned single judge in Ganesh Chandra Bhati v. District Magis trate, 1993 AWC 635 (Note B): 1993 (30) ACC 204. It may be noticed that in Masiuddin v. Commissioner, 1972 ALJ 573, S. N. Dwivedi, J. , (as His Lordship then was) had held that after a licence is granted, the right to hold the licence and possess a gun is a valuable individual right in a free country and cancellation of a licence destroys a valuable privilege of a free citizen. Again in Kailash Nath and others v. State of U. P. , 1985 (22) ACC 353, a full bench of five Honble Judges held that the licence for acquisition and posses sion of firearm is materially different from a licence for manufacture, sale etc. While the latter confers a right to carry on a trade or business and is a source of earning livelihood, the former is merely a personal privilege for doing something which without such privilege would be unlawful and the obtaining of a licence for acquisition and possession of firearm under the Arras Act is nothing more than a privilege. It was further hold that this right can not even remotely be comprehended within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution which postulates the fundamental right of protection of life and personal liberty. This was again reiterated by a full bench in Bcliam Singh v. State of U. P. , 1980 ALJ 23. In view of this binding precedent, I am unable to accept the view taken by the learned single Judge that right to procure arms is embedded in Article 2 of the Constitution and is a fundamental right. 10. In view of the reasons indicated above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed. .