JUDGMENT The petitioner feels aggrieved by an order dated 11.12.1995, passed in the proceedings under the Arms Act, whereunder the licence given to him for keeping a 12 bore gun with a single barrel was cancelled exercising the jurisdiction under section 17(3) of the aforesaid Act. The aforesaid order passed by the licensing authority was challenged by the petitioner in appeal. The appellate authority, however, endorsing the findings recorded by the licensing authority dismissed the appeal vide the impugned order dated 10.9.1996. The petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impugned orders. During the pendency of this writ petition, an application being I.A. No. 4696 of 1997 was filed on 2.7.1997, seeking amendment in the writ petition for bringing on record the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhander, District Datia in Criminal Case No. 144 of 1994. It was asserted that the only basis on which the impugned order of cancellation of the licence granted in favour of the petitioner had been passed was the pendency of the crime case No. 22 of 1994, under sections 336, 504 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code, which criminal case ultimately resulted in an order of acquittal of the petitioner passed by the criminal Court of competent jurisdiction on 1.4.1997. It may be noticed that on the basis of the aforesaid crime case, a criminal case No. 144 of 1994 had been registered and this case had been disposed of vide the judgment and order of acquittal dated 1.4.1997. A copy of the application seeking amendments to bring on record the aforesaid facts was served on the Government Advocate on 1.7.1997. Inspite of ample opportunities having been afforded, the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit/return so far and the allegations made in the application seeking amendments in the writ petition vide I.A.No. 4696 of 1997, remain unrebutted. A perusal of the impugned orders indicate that the sole basis for the cancellation of the licence of the petitioner was his involvement in the criminal case referred to hereinabove. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the acquittal of the petitioner in the aforesaid case, he is entitled to the restoration of his licence appears to have substance. Considering the facts and circumstances brought on record this writ petition succeeds. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the acquittal of the petitioner in the aforesaid case, he is entitled to the restoration of his licence appears to have substance. Considering the facts and circumstances brought on record this writ petition succeeds. The impugned orders dated 11.12.1995 and 10.9.1996, passed by the licensing authority and the appellate authority respectively are quashed with the direction to the licensing authority the respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders in regard to the release and restoration of the gun in respect whereof the licence had been granted to the petitioner providing further that in case the period of renewal of the licence has expired, the licensing authority shall afford an opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the requisite fee required to be paid to seek the renewal of the licence which may be granted unless any such circumstance exists which may justify refusal of the renewal of the licence. The licensing authority, respondent No. 3 ~hall ensure that the matter is finally disposed of within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.