B. K. ROY AND B. K. SHARMA, JJ. ( 1 ) THE prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 21. 9. 1988 passed by the District magistrate, Shahjahanpur (as contained in Annexure-2) as well as the appellate order dated 29. 8. 1989 passed by the Commissioner, Barellly (as contained in Annexure-1) dismissing his appeal No. 5 of 1988 preferred against the order of the District Magistrate. ( 2 ) THE portrayal of the relevant facts are in a narrow compass. The petitioner figured as an accused under Section 302, I. P. C. in Crime Case No. 175 of 1984, police station Rosa, district shahjahanpur for allegedly having committed murder of one Ramendra through his licenced gun. A report was submitted by the police before the District Magistrate that the petitioner is giving threats to the witnesses of the aforementioned crime case by asking them not to depose against him by showing his gun. Vide order dated 16. 5. 85 the District Magistrate suspended the licence of his D. B. B. L. gun and asked him to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled. On 7. 8. 1985 the petitioner filed his show cause. The petitioner went up in appeal which was finally dismissed vide order dated 12. 2. 1986. The petitioner was put on trial in S. T. No. 514 of 1985 which ended in his acquittal vide judgment and order dated 30. 11. 1987 passed by Sri R. P. Singh, special Judge, Shahjahanpur. While acquitting the petitioner, the learned Special Judge held that the prosecution story regarding Involvement of the accused (the writ petitioner) is not acceptable as his guilt could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution evidence is shakey and presence of alleged eye-witnesses Shiv Naraln Lal (P. W. 1) and Smt. Saraswati (P. W. 3) on the spot could not be established beyond doubt. The petitioner filed a copy of this judgment before the District Magistrate, who called for a report from the police. The Additional superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur submitted his report dated 27. 5. 88 stating that the informant as well as the witnesses of the murder case are still having dangers from the petitioner. The petitioner filed a copy of this judgment before the District Magistrate, who called for a report from the police. The Additional superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur submitted his report dated 27. 5. 88 stating that the informant as well as the witnesses of the murder case are still having dangers from the petitioner. The learned District Magistrate came to a conclusion that the petitioner is not a fit person to retain licence of fire-arm and thereby there is justification to confirm the suspension order and cancelled his licence with Immediate effect. The petitioner went up in appeal. On his behalf, it was submitted that since he has been acquitted of the charge of murder, his licence has been wrongly cancelled. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Bodh singh v. State of U. P. and others, 1985 All LR 1141. His appeal was dismissed after holding that the appellant was given a benefit of doubt and that due to his acts and behaviour, there is still danger to the lives of the informant and the witnesses and thereby his licence has been cancelled in public Interest and from security point of view. The petitioner assails the validity of these two orders in this writ petition. ( 3 ) MR. Manoj Mlshra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended as follows : (i) The appellate authority has not considered the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Ram bodh, Singhs case (supra) wherein it was specifically laid down thus : ". . . . . Even otherwise once petitioner was acquitted, those cases could not furnish material for cancellation of his licence. " (ii) In Masiddun v. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, 1972 AWR 3832, a learned single Judge of this Court has held as follows : "the mere existence of enmity between licensee and another person would not establish the necessary connection with security of the public peace and public safety. There must be some evidence of the provocative utterances of the licensee or of his suspicious movements or of his criminal designs and conspiracy in re-enforcement of the evidence of enmity. " This ratio was affirmed by a Division Bench (vide paragraph 12) of this Court in Awdhesh kumar v. District Magistrate, Banda, 1989 ACrr 457. There must be some evidence of the provocative utterances of the licensee or of his suspicious movements or of his criminal designs and conspiracy in re-enforcement of the evidence of enmity. " This ratio was affirmed by a Division Bench (vide paragraph 12) of this Court in Awdhesh kumar v. District Magistrate, Banda, 1989 ACrr 457. Accordingly, there should have been some evidence in terms suggested to in the decisions aforementioned, the authorities were not justified in cancellation of the licence of the petitioner and there being none their orders are liable to be quashed. In placing reliance on the report dated 27. 5. 1988 of the Additional superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur has committed an error inasmuch as in the report it has not been stated that as to on which date the petitioner had given threats to the informant and his witnesses and this aspect of the matter was not considered by the appellate authority though specifically urged before him. This apart, this report was not brought to the knowledge of the petitioner, otherwise he would have rebutted the allegations made against him as Incorrect and thereby principle of natural justice has been violated. ( 4 ) WE take up the second submission first. From the impugned order of the District Magistrate, it is clear that a report from the police was called for. The report of the Additional Superintendent of Police is dated 27. 5. 1988, whereas the order of the appellate authority was pronounced on 29. 8. 1989, i. e. , to say more than four months thereafter. The petitioner has not brought on record any material to show that this report was called for after the reservation of pronouncement of the order and thus the principle of natural justice has been violated. The order sheet of the District magistrate would have shown as to on what date the aforementioned report was received by him and whether any opportunity was granted to the petitioner or available to him to have his say in that regard. From the order of the appellate authority, it does not appear that at the appellate stage, such a grievance was made before the appellate authority. Even petition of appeal has not been brought on record. From the order of the appellate authority, it does not appear that at the appellate stage, such a grievance was made before the appellate authority. Even petition of appeal has not been brought on record. We, therefore, do not attach much importance to the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that it has been kept confidential and nothing has been supplied to the petitioner to make a proper representation. On proper reading of the relevant averments made by the petitioner, it appears that a grievance has been made in the writ petition for the first time that the materials on which the police report was based were kept confidential. It Is not the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the report aforementioned which appears to be the basis of the order of the District Magistrate. There is presumption of correction and regularity of the official arts. This presumption was required to be rebutted by the petitioner before the District Magistrate or at the appellate stage and not for the first time before this writ court. Otherwise also, materials are lacking before us to discard the report of the Additional Superintendent of Police on this ground and hold it to be untrue. The decisions relied upon by Shri Mlshra are of no help. On a bare perusal of paragraph 12 of the division Bench judgment in Awdhesh Kumar (supra), it appears that it was emphasised by this court that no report for any criminal offence, particularly those leading to public safety and security of public, was referred to by the District Magistrate. This observation is of no help to the petitioner inasmuch as in the instant case, as already stated, the report of the Additional superintendent of Police, which was specifically called for by the District Magistrate, is demonstrative of the factum of giving threats by the petitioner to the informant and his witnesses. By use of the expression evidence this Court meant material. No affidavit was filed by the petitioner either before the District Magistrate or even before the Commissioner stating that the facts reported to by the Additional Superintendent of Police are incorrect. It is now too late to accept the belated stand of the petitioner. This submission, therefore, fails. ( 5 ) NOW we come to the first submission. No affidavit was filed by the petitioner either before the District Magistrate or even before the Commissioner stating that the facts reported to by the Additional Superintendent of Police are incorrect. It is now too late to accept the belated stand of the petitioner. This submission, therefore, fails. ( 5 ) NOW we come to the first submission. It is true that the observation in the judgment relied upon do support this contention. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, the other contention having been rejected, we cannot hold that the impugned orders are vitiated on account of an apparent error of law and thus we should be justified in invoking our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, this writ petition is dismissed, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances without there being any order as to cost. --- *** --