G. P. MATHUR, J. A. large number of writ petitions have been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to seize the fire-arms of the petitioners and not to compel or direct them to deposit their fire-arms. Two such petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. In writ petition No. 29514 of 1994 the case of the petitioner is that he is resi dent of district Shahjahanpur in the State of U. P. and he was granted a licence for a. 12 bore DBBL gun by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Deemapur, Nagaland on 30-10-91 and thereafter he purchased a gun from a arms dealer of Kanpur. A news was published in a daily newspaper that the police officials of district Shahjahanpur had found that many persons had obtained forged arms licences purporting to have been issued by the authorities in the State of Nagaland. Thereafter the local police was putting pressure upon the petitioner to deposit his gun. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Station Officer of PS. Tilhar district Shahjahanpur wherein it is averred that a thorough enquiry had been made. . . . . and it was revealed that many people had acquired fire-arms and were keeping the same on the strength of forged arms licences which purported to have been issued by the authorities of State of Nagaland. It is as serted that the petitioner is resident of Shahjahanpur and he never resided or car ried on any business or occupation in Nagaland nor he was granted any arms licence there. A gang was operating which has manufactured forged arm licences which purport to have been issued in the State of Nagaland. Though the copy of the counter affidavit was served upon the learned counsel for the petitioner on 30-3-95 but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed. 3. In writ petition No. 3002 of 1994 the case of the petitioner is that he is resident of district Shahjahanpur but on account of poverty he went Nagaland to earn his livelihood by working as labourer and during his stay there he applied for and was granted a licence for a. 12 bore DBBL gun by Deputy Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland. In writ petition No. 3002 of 1994 the case of the petitioner is that he is resident of district Shahjahanpur but on account of poverty he went Nagaland to earn his livelihood by working as labourer and during his stay there he applied for and was granted a licence for a. 12 bore DBBL gun by Deputy Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland. Thereafter he purchased a gun from a licensed arms dealer in the State of U. P. In the licence it was mentioned that the same was valid for "all India". However, the local police was compelling the petitioner to deposit his gun. Since the licence had not been suspended or cancelled the authorities had no right to deprive the petitioner of his fire-arm. In this case, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State. 4. So far as the writ petition No. 29514 of 1994 is concerned, it is clear from the counter affidavit that the petitioner has no arm licence in his favour and he purchased and is keeping a gun on the strength of a forged arm licence. Since the petitioner has no arm licence in his favour, he has no right to keep a weapon and the authorities are fully entitled to seize the same. 5. So far as the writ petition No. 30032 of 1994 is concerned, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State though one month time was granted on 20-9-94. How ever as a period of more than two years has elapsed and similar controversy has already been decided by me, I do not consider it proper to grant any further time to the State for filing counter affidavit. The question whether a Deputy Commissioner of the State of Nagaland can grant a fire-arm licence which will be valid in the State of U. P. despite the fact that an endorsement to the effect that it is valid in "all India" has been mentioned therein, has been con sidered by me in Pravesh Kumar v. District Magistrate, 1995 ACC 312 : 1995 JIC 804 (All ). After considering the provisions of of Arms Act and the Rules made there under, it has been held that a Deputy Com missioner has no authority to issue a fire arm licence which may be valid for whole of India and that the fire arm licences issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Nagaland are wholly invalid in the State of U. P. It has been further held that the police in the State of U. P. is entitled to seize the fire arms of all such persons who are holding the arms on the strength of licences granted by the Deputy Commissioners of the State of Nagaland. 6. It may also be mentioned here that the correctness of the decision rendered in Pravesh Kumar (supra) was challenged in special appeal No. 657 of 1996 (Sitresh Chandra Mishra v. State of U. P. and others but the same was dismissed by a Division Bench on 4-9-1996. 7. Sri Ramendra Asthana has sub mitted that right to possess arms is em bedded in Article 21 of the Constitution and is a fundamental right as held by a learned Single Judge in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. District Magistrate, 1993 AWC 635 : 1993 JIC 490 (All) and the view to the contrary taken by me in Pravesh Kumar (supra) re quires reconsideration. I had expressed dis agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt (supra) on the basis of the earlier decisions of this Court in Masiuddin v. Com missioner 1972 ALJ 573 ; Kailash Nath and others v. State of U. P. AIR 1985 All. 291 (F. B.) andbalram Singh v. State of U. P. 1989 ALJ 23 (F. B ). The decision in Pravesh Kumar was rendered on 18-1-1995. Shortly thereafter a Full Bench of five Judges in Rana Pratap Singh v. State 1995 ACJ 200 : 1995 JIC 1062 (All) (FB), has specifically overruled the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt and has held that right to carry fire-arm does not come within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution. 8. Sri Asthana has next urged that in view of Section 21 of the Arms Act the petitioner should be permitted to deposit the fire arm with a licensed dealer or should be permitted to dispose of the same. 8. Sri Asthana has next urged that in view of Section 21 of the Arms Act the petitioner should be permitted to deposit the fire arm with a licensed dealer or should be permitted to dispose of the same. In my opinion Section 21 will apply where posses sion of a fire-arm on the strength of a valid arm licence ceases to be lawful as a conse quence of expiration of the duration of the licence or suspension or revocation thereof or by issuance of a notification under Sec tion 4 or by any reason whatsoever. This section will have no application where the arm is acquired on the basis of a forged licence. Therefore, in all such cases where the arms were acquired on the basis of forged licences benefit of this provisions cannot be given. It is only in such cases where a person acquired a fire arm on the strength of a valid licence from the State of Nagaland and his possession thereof has become unlawful on account of his keeping the weapon with him in a place which j outside the territory of State of Nagalans, that the benefit of Section 21 of the Act can be given. It is not possible for this Court to hold an enquiry regarding the genuineness of the licence in each individual case in present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore it is not pos sible to issue any direction as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in these writ petitions and the same are dismissed. Interim orders are vacated. Petition dismissed. .