Judgment S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Petitioners of both the Writ Petitions are same, who are jointly dealer in arms and ammuniation, and holder of licences in the name and style of M/s Janta arms Store, Gaya and M/s Nasim and company, Gaya. Licences of both the parties have been suspended by the District Magistrate, Gaya by two different orders of same date, i. e.26th of November, 1976 (Annexure 1), they were subsequently cancelled by two different orders passed by the District Magistrate, gaya, both dated 23rd of July, 1982 (Annexure 3 ). The appeal petitions in both the writ petitions have been rejected by common orders, dated 30th of April, 1985/2nd of May, 1985 (Annexure 5 ). The orders of suspension of licences, orders of cancellation and the orders passed by the appellate authority are same and similar in both the writ-petitions, thereby they are being heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. The original petitioner No.1, nasim Gorganwi started two businesses for selling arms and ammunition having obtained two licences for the same. Licence No.7/66 was obtained in the name and style of M/s Janta Arms Store, gaya (the subject-matter of C. W. J. C. No.4123/85 ). Another licence No.8/66 was obtained by said Nasim Gorganwi in the name and style of M/s Nasim and company, Gaya. Subsequently on application made in terms of Rule 53 (2) of the Arms Rules, 1962 in Form XXII, name of petitioner No.2, Shri Wasim uddin Ahmad, who is son of petitioner no.1, Nasim Gorganwi was added as one of the partner in addition to the original one, namely, Shri Nasim Gorganwi, in both the cases. 3. The petitioners were continuing with their businesses of arms and ammunition, after renewal of licences year to year, when on 26th of November, 1976 their licences were suspended vide annexure 1; subsequently cancelled vide orders both dated 23rd of July, 1982 (Annexure-3 ). Subsequently appeals were filed against such cancellation, as stated above, which appeals have been rejected vide order dated 30th of April, 1985/2nd of May, 1985 vide Annexure-5. Being aggrieved the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders of suspension (Annexure-1), orders of cancellation of licences (Annexure-3) and the appellate orders (Annexure-5 ). Subsequently appeals were filed against such cancellation, as stated above, which appeals have been rejected vide order dated 30th of April, 1985/2nd of May, 1985 vide Annexure-5. Being aggrieved the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders of suspension (Annexure-1), orders of cancellation of licences (Annexure-3) and the appellate orders (Annexure-5 ). At this stage it is to be taken into note that on 23rd of November, 1976 an inspection was made by the Arms Magistrate, who submitted a report behind the back of the petitioners alleging therein violation of certain sections and rules. It was on the basis of the aforesaid report of the Arms Magistrate the impugned orders of suspension of licences dated 26th of November, 1976 (Annexure 1)were passed by the District Magistrate, gaya in both the case suspending the licence No.7/66 and Licence No.8/66, respectively. It was alleged in the order of suspension that the Condition No.1 (a) of licence in Form XIII ; condition nos.3 and 8 of licence in Form XIV; secs.5 and 7 of the Arms Act, 1959 and rules 45 and 47 of the Arms Rules, 1962 have been violated by the petitioners. While so suspending the licence it was further ordered in both the cases by the District Magistrate, gaya, to file criminal cases under the arms Act against the petitioners (dealers) for violation of Arms Act. 4. Accordingly, two criminal cases were filed against the petitioners (dealers ). Both shops were sealed. All the arms and ammunition were seized by the respondents. One criminal case was numbered as G. R. Case No.2605/76/tr. No.675/79 and the other one as G. R. Case No.2604/77/tr -. No.674/79, both in the Court of Judicial magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya. During the pendency of the aforesaid two criminal cases licences of the petitioners were not cancelled. The trial in both the criminal cases concluded against the petitioners on 30th of January, 1979 convicting the petitioners and inflicting sentences to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for alleged violation of Sec.25 (1) of the Arms Act with further sentence of imprisonment for three months for violation of Sec.30 of the Arms Act. Petitioners being aggrieved filed two appeal petitions bearing Criminal Appeal No.13/80/38/79 and Criminal Appeaj No.14/80/39/79, against the aforesaid judgement of convictions and sentences, both dated 30th of January, 1979. 5. Petitioners being aggrieved filed two appeal petitions bearing Criminal Appeal No.13/80/38/79 and Criminal Appeaj No.14/80/39/79, against the aforesaid judgement of convictions and sentences, both dated 30th of January, 1979. 5. It was during the pendency of the aforesaid two appeals the respondent-District Magistrate, Gaya passed the impugned orders both dated 23rd of july, 1982 (Annexure-3 in both the cases), by which licences of the petitioners have been cancelled. Petitioners thereafter had to file appeals before the Commissioner, Magadh division, Gaya, in terms with the Arms rules bearing Case Nos.13/83 and 14/83, challenging the orders of cancellation dated 23rd of July, 1982. In the meantime, the criminal appeals, which were filed by the petitioners they were heard and decided by the 1st Additional sessions Judge, Gaya vide judgments both dated 13th of October, 1982 (Annexure-2 ). Both the criminal appeals were allowed on merit. The petitioners were honourably acquitted holding the charges not proved against the petitioners and thereby set aside the judgments of convictions made by the trial court on 30th of January, 1979. 6. The appeal petitions filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner, magadh Division, Gaya against the orders of cancellations of licences were heard in the year, 1985. It seems that the petitioners took different grounds for assailing the orders of cancellation of licences, including the ground that they have already been honourably acquitted by the appellate court in criminal appeals. The appellate authority, namely, the Commissioner, Magadh Division, gaya, rejected both the appeals by the common impugned order dated 30th of april, 1985/2-5-1985 (Annexure-5)mainly on the ground that the criminal appeal/criminal proceeding and proceeding in the departmental side (which is civil in nature) they were two different matters and there the petitioners cannot derive automatic benefit for restoration of licences solely on the ground that they have been acquitted by the criminal court. The orders of cancellation of licences were thereby confirmed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, gaya. It is only thereafter the petitioners have moved before this court in these writ petitions. 7. When the case was taken up for hearing, at the bar it was pointed out by the Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No.1, Nasim Gorganwi died during the pendency of the writ petition on 31st of December, 1993, thereby the writ petitions were pressed only by petitioner No.2, Wasim Uddin Ahmad. 7. When the case was taken up for hearing, at the bar it was pointed out by the Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No.1, Nasim Gorganwi died during the pendency of the writ petition on 31st of December, 1993, thereby the writ petitions were pressed only by petitioner No.2, Wasim Uddin Ahmad. At that point of time the counsel for the state pointed out that the writ petitions have become infructuous, petitioner no.1, Nasim Gorganwi having died. If the writ petitions are allowed. The petitioner No.2 automatically cannot run his arm shops on the basis of the original licences, which were originally in the name of petitioner No.1. Nasim gorganwi. On this point the Counsel for the petitioners argued that there is still cause of action so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned and the writ petitions have not become totally infructuous and thereby to decide the matter on merit. The ground so pleaded by the petitioners relating to continuance of cause of action with respect to petitioner No.2, I will deal subsequently, which will make it clear that the writ-pettions have not become totally infructuous and still there is some cause of action of the petitioner No.2. 8. Counsel for the petitioners raised different points and mainly pressed the following grounds: (i) The report of Arms Magistrate was submitted behind the back of the petitioners, in complete violation of rules of natural justice. Such report cannot be taken into account for suspension and/or cancellation of licences of the petitioners; (ii) There was completely non-application of mind on the part of the District magistrate in cancellation of licences. No ground and/or evidence has been cited in passing the impugned orders of cancellation of licences; (iii) All the charges as were levelled against the petitioners in criminal cases and that for suspension of licences, which culminated to cancellation of licences, being same and similar, the petitioners having been honourably acquitted on merit in criminal appeals, the orders of cancellation of licences are fit to be set aside; and (iv) The appellate orders are bad having confirmed the illegal orders of cancellation of licences, are also liable to be struck off. 9. 9. Having gone through the orders of suspension, orders of cancellation, appellate orders (Annexures 1, 3 and 5)and having gone through the judgments passed in criminal appeals (Annexure 2)I feel that there is no need of deciding all the grounds raised by the petitioners. Admittedly when the licences were suspended on 26th of November, 1976, the District Magistrate shown in such orders of suspension the violation of different conditions prescribed in the licence forms; violation of certain sections of Arms Act and violation of certain rules of Arms Rules, on the basis of report of the Arms Magistrate. On these basis of such report of Arms Magistrate the licences of petitioners were not cancelled. On the other hand, it was ordered by the District Magistrate to lodge criminal cases against the petitioners for violation of the aforesaid provisions of Arms Act/rules and conditions prescribed in the licence forms. It was only on 30th of January, 1979 admittedly the petitioners were convicted and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment by the Trial Court. Thereafter the district Magistrate, Gaya, passed the impugned orders of cancellation of licences dated 23rd of July, 1982 (Annexure-3 ). It will be evident from the said Annexure-3, the order of cancellation, that the District Magistrate cancelled the licences because of the following grounds as stated hereunder : "from perusal of the record it is clear that the petitioners are not a fit person to hold licence for the dealership of arms. " 10. No other reason has been given. It is not clear from the impugned orders of cancellation dated 23rd of july, 1982 as to which record weighed the District Magistrate to hold that the petitioners are not fit persons to hold the licence for dealership of arms. The report of the Arms Magistrate was already there as back as in the year, 1976 when the licences were suspended. If the licences were not cancelled at that point of time in 1976 and/or immediately thereafter on the basis of such report of the Arms Magistrate suddenly it cannot be stated that on 23rd of July, 1982 when the impugned orders of cancellation of licences were issued, such report of Arms Magistrate weighed the District magistrate to cancel the licences. If the licences were not cancelled at that point of time in 1976 and/or immediately thereafter on the basis of such report of the Arms Magistrate suddenly it cannot be stated that on 23rd of July, 1982 when the impugned orders of cancellation of licences were issued, such report of Arms Magistrate weighed the District magistrate to cancel the licences. The only conclusion thereby can be drawn from the impugned orders dated 23rd of july, 1982 that it was the conviction of the petitioners are sentences awarded upon them by the trial court on 30th of january, 1979 is the only record which weighed the District Magistrate to hold that the petitioners are not fit persons to hold the licences of dealership in arms. 11. If that is so, in view of the fact that subsequently the judgments of the trial Court convicting the petitioners dated 30th of January, 1979 having been set aside in criminal appeals and the petitioners having been honourably acquitted on merit on 13th of October, 1982, it was the duty of the Divisional commissioner, Gaya, to allow the appeal setting aside the orders of cancellation of licences (Annexur. e-3), which were based on illegal judgments passed by the trial court. 12. If the impugned orders of cancellation dt.23-7-1982 (Annexure-3) are passed because of the report submitted by the Arms Magistrate still the same (Annexure-3) are fit to be declared illegal, as admittedly the Arms Magistrate submitted report behind the back of the petitioners, without giving them any opportunity in violation of rules of natural justice. In any case the impugned orders or cancellation of licences dated 23rd of july, 1982 (Annexure-3) being criptic, non-speaking order and as it does not disclose as to which evidence and on which ground the same has been passed, the same is enough ground to set aside the orders dated 23rd of July, 1982 (Annexure-3 ). Thereby if the original orders of cancellation of licences are bad from all the aforesaid three aspects, the appellate orders as contained in Annexure-5 in both the writ petitions cannot stand. 13. Now comes to the question as to what benefit petitioner No.2 will derive if the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 1, 3 and 5 are set aside. Admittedly licences were originally given to the father of petitioner No.2, namely, Nasim Gorganwi. 13. Now comes to the question as to what benefit petitioner No.2 will derive if the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 1, 3 and 5 are set aside. Admittedly licences were originally given to the father of petitioner No.2, namely, Nasim Gorganwi. Subsequently name of the petitioner No.2 was added therein as one of the partner and holder of the licences in terms with Rule 53 (2)of the Arms Rules, 1962 . The licences are renewed year to year. After cancellation of licences made in the year, 1982 there is no renewal. So it is a fact that if the impugned orders are set aside, petitioner No.2 automatically does not get any right to run the shops in question on the basis of the aforesaid to licences bearing Nos.7/66 and 8/66. On query made by me, the Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the petitioners have already paid renewal fee for renewal of licences up to the year, 1991. Subsequently because of long pendency of the present case and for other difficulties the renewal fee has not been paid for three years. Counsel for the petitioners further states that when in terms with Rule 53 (2) of the arms Rules, 1962 the name of petitioner No.2 was added on request as one of the partner of the firm, similarly the petitioner No.2 even at present can make application in terms with the said rule for deletion of name of petitioner No.1 from the licences, he having already died and thereafter to run the shop on the basis of such licences, further it has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners that if the licences remain cancelled, then in such cases, petitioner No.2 cannot as for renewal of licences. Whereas if the impugned orders are set aside, the petitioner No.2 automatically gets his right to apply for renewal of licences. Thereby the cause of action, so far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, is still there and the cases have not yet been become infructuous. I accept this plea of the petitioners and reject the contention of the State Counsel that the writ-petitions have become infructuous. 14. Thereby the cause of action, so far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, is still there and the cases have not yet been become infructuous. I accept this plea of the petitioners and reject the contention of the State Counsel that the writ-petitions have become infructuous. 14. For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs having held the cancellation of licences dated 23rd of july, 1982 as alleged (Annexure-3 in both the cases), orders of suspension of licences as contained in Annexure 1 having already merged with the orders of cancellation; the appellate Orders as contained in Annexure 5 having confirmed illegal orders of cancellation of licences, all the aforesaid Annexures 1, 3 and 5 in both the cases are set aside. The Affect will be that the licences of petitioners bearing Licence Nos.7/66 and 8/66 will not be deemed to be cancelled, but will be deemed to have lapsed, for which the petitioner No.2 has got liberty to move for renewal of the same in accordance with law. The petitioner No.2 may further move the appropriate authority for deletion of name of deceased, Nasim Gorganwi from the partnership of the firm, for the purpose of continuance of the licences in sole name of the petitioner No.2. Similarly it will be open for the competent authority to pass order in accordance with law on such application for running the business under the proprietorship of petitioner No.2. So far as the renewal of licences is concerned, the petitioners have already paid renewal fee up to the year, 1991. If the petitioners have not paid the renewal fee for the subsequent years because of the pendency of the present case and lingering of the case here in the Court, that is enough ground for condonation of delay in payment of renewal fee. If the petitioner No.2 gets permission to continue with the licences under his proprietorship, in such case if the petitioner deposit the renewal fees for the subsequent year from 1992 onwards, that should be accepted by the appropriate authority and the authority will pass order relating to renewal of licences. If the petitioner No.2 gets permission to continue with the licences under his proprietorship, in such case if the petitioner deposit the renewal fees for the subsequent year from 1992 onwards, that should be accepted by the appropriate authority and the authority will pass order relating to renewal of licences. If the petitioner No.2 files appropriate applications for deletion of names of deceased, Nasim Gorganwi and deposit fees for renewal for the year, 1992 and subsequent years within a period of four weeks from today the competent authority will decide the matter relating to deletion of name of petitioner No.1 from the licences and will also pass appropriate order relating to renewal of licences within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such application/renewal fees whichever is later ). The writ petitions are allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Petitions Allowed.