Order Heard Mr. K.N. Keshav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Dwivedi, counsel appearing for respondent no. 2. 2. The controversy in this application relates to the release of a D.B.B.L. Gun bearing no. 116137 which was deposited, by the petitioner, in terms of section 21 (l) of the Arms Act, 1956 (the Act' hereinafter). 3. Although the petitioner and the 2nd respondent arc in serious dispute over the question of succession of a certain Mahanth Sheo Goswami (deceased), there are certain facts which art beyond any dispute. The gun admittedly belonged to the dccea1ied Mahanth and was duly entered in the licence issued in his name. It is also not in dispute that on the fire arm licence of the deceased Mahanth, the name of the petitioner was entered as the gun’s retainer alongwith his photograph attached to the licence. 4. According to the petitioner during the life time of the Mahanth, he had applied for a fire arm licence in accordance with the Mahanth's wish to give him the gun in question on the grant of licence. However, before he was granted a fire arm licence and before he could give the gun to the petitioner, the Mahanth was killed and in connection with the criminal case relating to his murder, respondent no. 2 was taken into custody. He was tater released on bail. 5. After the death of the Mahanth, tee petitioner deposited the gun, a provided under section 21(1) of the Act, with a licensed arms dealer against receipt, dated 24.1.1992 granted by the dealer. A photostate copy of the receipt is at annexure 6 in which the petitioner's name it clearly stated against the column concerning the name of the depositor. At this stage, it may be noted that the Mahanth during his life time had filed T.S. No. 243/1987 against the Bihar State Religious Trust Board seeking a declaration among other reliefs that the trust, being the subject matter of the suit was not a public trust but a personal trust. After the death of the Mahanth and while respondent no. 2 was in custody, the petitioner got himself substituted as the plaintiff in the suit in place of the deceased Mahanth. Later, when the 2nd respondent came out on bail, he made an application before the court for being impleaded as a party in the suit. After the death of the Mahanth and while respondent no. 2 was in custody, the petitioner got himself substituted as the plaintiff in the suit in place of the deceased Mahanth. Later, when the 2nd respondent came out on bail, he made an application before the court for being impleaded as a party in the suit. On that petition the Subordinate Judge IV, Siwan before whom the case was pending, held and found, vide order dated 6.8.1997, that he had got prima facie case to be impleaded as a party in the suit. The court further observed that as the petitioner had already been substituted as the plaintiff in place of the deceased Mahanth and as at this stage it could not be decided as to who was the real Chela of the Mahanth, respondent no. 2 was to be added as an intervenor defendant. 6. Mr. Dwivedi, resisted the petitioner's prayer for the release of the gun primarily on the ground of the dispute pending between, the parties in the title suit before the civil court. Enlarging on the case of the 2nd respondent, Mr. Dwivedi submitted that only a celibate could be the Chela of the Mahanth and the petitioner, was admittedly living in matrimony and had fathered many children. He also relied upon some gift deeds and other documents in which his client was shown as the Chela of the deceased Mahanth. 7. The course of submission adopted by Mr. Dwivedi does not appear to me to be very relevant for the purpose of this dispute. It is not for this court nor does this court have the least intention of deciding as to who was the lawful Chela of the Mahanth or who had the right of ownership over the gun in question. Those questions are to be decided by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. 8. What falls for consideration before this writ court is the petitioner's claim for the release of the gun in his favour and the legal validity of the order, dated 8.12.1995 passed by the Collector, Siwan prohibiting the release of the gun till the question of succession of the Mahanth was decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. 9. Mr. Keshav, counsel for the petitioner based his submission for the release of the gun on sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Act. 9. Mr. Keshav, counsel for the petitioner based his submission for the release of the gun on sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Act. It will be useful here to take a look at section 21. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of which are as follows : "(1) Any person having in his possession any arms or ammunition the possession whereof has, in consequence of the expiration of the duration of a licence or of the suspension or revocation of a licence or by the issue of a notification under Sec. 4 or by any reason whatever, ceased to be lawful shall without unnecessary delay deposit the name either with the Officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, with a licensed dealer or where such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in a unit armoury. Explanation.-In this sub section "unit armoury" includes an 'armoury in a ship or establishment of the Indian Navy'. "(2) Where arms or ammunition have or has been deposited under sub-section (1) the depositor or in the case of his death, his legal representative shall at any time before the expiry of such period as may he prescribed, be entitled- (a) to receive back any thing so deposited on his becoming entitled by virtue of this Act or any other law of the time being in force to have the same in his possession, or (b) to dispose, or authorize the disposal of anything so deposited by sale or otherwise to any person entitled by virtue of this Act or any other law for the time being in force to have, or not prohibited by this Act or such other law from having the same in his possession and to receive the proceeds of any such disposal : Provided that nothing in this sub section shall be deemed to authorize the return or disposal of any thing of which confiscation has been directed under Sec. 32" It is undeniable that at the time of the death of the Mahanth the gun in question was in the hands of the petitioner, he being the licenced retainer of the gun. It therefore, follows that after the death of the Mahanth, his possession of the gun became unlawful and in that situation he deposited it as required under sub-section (1) of section 21. It therefore, follows that after the death of the Mahanth, his possession of the gun became unlawful and in that situation he deposited it as required under sub-section (1) of section 21. The fact that it was the petitioner who had deposited the gun is evident from the receipt (Annexure 6) and this fact is not even denied by the 2nd respondent. Therefore by virtue of being its depositor, he is entitled to the release of the gun as provided in sub section (2) of Section 21. 10. Mr. Dwivedi submitted that the provision of section 21 (2) would apply only in a case where gun was deposited by its lawful owner. The submission is unacceptable on a plain language of subsections (1) and (2) of lection 21. Sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 21 have no concern with the ownership of the gun and limply provide that a person depositing the gun would be entitled to its release in his favour. 11. In the light of the discussion made above, it is to be held that the petitioner's claim is well founded and the gun must be released in his favour. 12. At this stage, however, it is to be made clear that release of the gun in favour of the petitioner will always be subject to the decision on the question of its ownership and in case a competent court found that the ownership of the gun lay with the 2nd respondent or with any other person the order of release in the petitioner's favour will not come in the way of the lawful owner to take back the possession of the gun subject to the provisions of the Act. 13. For the reasons discussed above, the gun is directed to be released in favour of the petitioner who has been granted a fire arm licence and is now legally authorised to possess a gun. The release of the gun in the petitioner's favour would however be subject to determination of its ownership by a competent authority. It may further be noted that any observation or remarks made in this order will not prejudice the case of the parties in the title suit before the civil court. It will be open to the 2nd respondent to pray for necessary amendments and seek reliefs in respect of the gun in the title suit. It may further be noted that any observation or remarks made in this order will not prejudice the case of the parties in the title suit before the civil court. It will be open to the 2nd respondent to pray for necessary amendments and seek reliefs in respect of the gun in the title suit. In case such a prayer is made it will be decided by the civil court having regard to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 14. In the result, this application is allowed subject to the aforesaid observation and direction.