JUDGMENT S.N. Jha, J. As questions involved in these two writ petitions are identical, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. The question of law is whether on the death of the person holding an arms licence and after surrender of the fire-arm, the same is liable to be forfeited to the Government on expiry of the stipulated period even though application for arms licence has been made by a legal representative of the deceased licence holder and the same is pending. 2. In order to appreciated the point the relevant facts of the two caes may briefly be stated as follows. In C.W.J.C. No. 13068 of 1996 the fire-arm licence stood in the name of Manager Singh, the father of the petitioner, After Manager Singh died on 15-6-90 the gun was deposited with Shashi Shastragar, Bhabhua, an arms and ammunition Dealer on 24-7-90. It is said that such deposit was made by Sheo Murat Singh, brother of Manage Singh and, thus, uncle of the petitioner. It is a said that deposit was made by Sheo Murat Sinha as the petition being a patient of paralysis was unable to move. According to the petitioner, his cousin Uday Pratap Singh, son of the said Sheo Murat Singh, applied for arms licence, with his consent, and the same was granted to him on 17-12-92. The petitioner also after recovering from the ailment applied for the licence on 19-3-94. Earlier, after the licence was granted to his cousin Uday Pratap Singh on 29-12-92 the petitioner had filed an application that the gun in question may be released to him. An order of forefeiture of the gun however was passed in the meantime on 17-12-93 The petitioner challenged the forefeiture by way of writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 11659 of 1993, in this Court. On 8-1-96, the order of forefeiture was set aside by the Court and the petitioner was asked to appear before the District magistrate and file show cause. He accordingly filed show cause. By the impugned order dated 3-10-96 the District magistrate Kaimur (Bhabhua) has rejected the show cause and reiterated the order of forfeiture. Copy of the said order has been marked as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. He accordingly filed show cause. By the impugned order dated 3-10-96 the District magistrate Kaimur (Bhabhua) has rejected the show cause and reiterated the order of forfeiture. Copy of the said order has been marked as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The Petitioner seeks quashing of the said order and a direction to keep he order in abeyance till the disposal of the application for grant of arms licence filed by him so that after the licence is granted, the gun may he returned to him as its owner. 3. In C.W.J.C. No. 291 of 1997, the father of the petitioner Shivadhar Singh in whose name the arms licence stood, died on 8-12-88. Application for arms licence was filed by one Awadhesh Singh, the grandson of the Shivadhar Singh and nephew of the petitioner. It is an admired position that the petitioner never applied position that the petitioner never applied for the licence. The petitioner received a show cause notice on 9-7-93 against proposed forfeiture of the gun. He filed show cause in which he took the stand that his nephew had already applied for licence within stipulated period and, therefore, the gun should not be forfeited. The District magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabhua) by his order dated 9-12-96 rejected the plea and ordered forfeiture of the gun. Copy of the said order has been marked Annexure 2 to the writ petition. 4. Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 291 of 1997 and Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, learned Counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 13068 of 1996, submitted that the District Magistrate had no authority to pass an order of forfeiture during pendency of the application for licence. While Mr. Sahay tried to persuade the Court that the petitioner had good reasons for not making the application on account of his ailment within the prescribed period, Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh submitted that, Awadesh Singh, being grandson of the licence holder was fully competent to apply for licence as legal representative of the deceased and since he had applied for licence within the prescribed period, the District Magistrate committed error in passing the order of forfeiture on that ground the no application for licence had been made. Krishna Prasad Singh submitted that, Awadesh Singh, being grandson of the licence holder was fully competent to apply for licence as legal representative of the deceased and since he had applied for licence within the prescribed period, the District Magistrate committed error in passing the order of forfeiture on that ground the no application for licence had been made. It may he mentioned here that although the date of application for licence filed by Awadhesh Singh has not been disclosed by the petitioner, from the counter-affidavit of the respondents it appears that the application was made on 14-4-89, i.e. after the expiry of the prescribed period of one year. In view of the larger question involved in the case, I do not want to go into the side question as to whether the application was made within time or not. However, as indicated above, it is an admitted position that the petitioner or any other son of the licence holder has no till, date made any application for licence. 5. The relevant provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rule, 1962 may be noticed at one place at this stage. Section 12 of the Act provides for deposit of arms etc. on expiry of the duration of the licence or its suspension/revocation or on the death of the licence folder. The Section so far as relevant runs as follows:- "21. Deposit of arms, etc. Section 12 of the Act provides for deposit of arms etc. on expiry of the duration of the licence or its suspension/revocation or on the death of the licence folder. The Section so far as relevant runs as follows:- "21. Deposit of arms, etc. on possession ceasing to be lawful-(1) Any person having in his possession any arms or ammunition, the possession where of 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 Section 4 or by any reason whatever, ceased to be law-full, shall without unnecessary delay, deposit the same either with the officer-in-charge or the nearest police station or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed with licensed dealer or where such person is member of the armed forces of the Union, In a unit-armoury, Explanation-(Omitted) (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 my be prescribed, be entitled:- (a) to receive back anything so deposited on becoming entitled by vitue of this Act, or any other law for the time being in force to have the same in his possession; (b) to dispose, or authorise the disposal, of anything so deposited by sale or otherwise to any person entitled to 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 subsection shall be deemed to authorise the return or disposal of anything of which confiscation has been directed under Section 37. (3) All things deposited and not received back or disposed of under subsection (2) within tile period therein referred to shall be forfeited to Government by order of the District Magistrate: Provided that in the case of suspension of a licence no such forfeiture shall be ordered in respect of a thing covered by the licence during the period of suspension. (4) Before making an order under sub-section (3) of the District Magistrate shall, by notice in writing to be served upon the depositor or in the case of his death, upon his legal representative, in the prescribed manner, require him to show cause within thirty days from the service of the notice why the things specified in the notice should not be forfeited. (5) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the depositor or, as the case may be, his legal representative, the District Magistrate shall pass such order as he thinks fit. (6) The Government may at any time return to the depositor or his legal representative things forfeited to it or the proceeds of disposal there of wholly or in part. " The corresponding provisions in the Arms Rules are contained in Rule 46.So far as relevant it, runs as follows:- “46, Deposit of arms and ammunition under Section 21 (1)-When a licensing authority decide to suspend or revoke a licence or to refuse to renew it he shall while communicating his decision in writing to the licensee, inform him that- (a) under Section 21 (1) he is required to deposit within such time as may be specified in the order suspending revoking or refusing to renew the licence, the arms or ammunition covered by the licence, either with the officer-in-charge of the nearest Police Station or with a dealer holding a licence in Form XIV, or in case he is member of the armed forces of the Union, In the unit armoury; (b) subject to the proviso 10 Section 21(2), during the period prescribed under sub-rule (4), he or, in the case of hiss death, his legal representative is entitled to sell or otherwise dispose of the arms of ammunition to any person lawfully entitled to possess the same and to receive the sale proceeds. If any and (c) If the arms or ammunition have not been disposed of or their possession by the licensee or his legal representative, as the case may be, has not become lawful within the prescribed period they shall, subject to the proviso to section 21 (3), be forfeited to Government by order of the District Magistrate. (2).................. (3).................. If any and (c) If the arms or ammunition have not been disposed of or their possession by the licensee or his legal representative, as the case may be, has not become lawful within the prescribed period they shall, subject to the proviso to section 21 (3), be forfeited to Government by order of the District Magistrate. (2).................. (3).................. (4) The period within which a depositor or his legal representative may exercise his rights under sub-section (2) of Section 21 shall be- (a) six months from the date of deposit, if the arms or ammunition are deposited as a consequence of contravention by its owner or any provision of the Act or these rules or any condition of the licence: (b) one year- (i) from the date of deposit, if the arms or ammunition are deposited as a consequence of its possession becoming unlawful under Section 21(1) otherwise than as under Clause (1), or (ii) if it is already in deposit, from the date of communication to the owner, or the order revoking, suspending, or refusing to renew the licence, or (iii) from the date of notification issued under Section 4; (c) One year and six month if their fire arms are deposited as a consequence of proviso to sub-section (2) of section 3: Provided that any period under clause (a) or (b) shall be reckoned- (i) Where an appeal is preferred by the owner under Section 18-from the date of the final order of the appellate authority: (ii) Where the arms or ammunition is the subject of a legal suit or dispute or is owned or inherited by a person who has not completed the age of sixteen years from the date, of termination of the dispute or of completion by that person of the age of sixteen years: (iii) Where the owner of the arms or ammunition is on active service outside India-from the date of his return to India: Provided further that - (i) When the arms and ammunition is owned by a person who is considered by the licensing authority to be unfit, for the time being to carry the arm or ammunition for any reason, or in any other suitable case, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, in relation to any metropolitan area, may, extend the period prescribed under Clause (a) or Clause (b) for a period upto six months, and (ii) the State Government may by special or general order extend the period beyond six months: Provided further that when the arm or ammunition is owned by a person who is considered by the licensing authority to be unfit, for the time being, to carry the arm or ammunition for any reason, the period prescribed under Clause (a) may be extended suitably by the District Magistrate, or the Commissioner of Police in relation to any metropolitan area. (5) .................... (6) .................... 6. It would appear from persual of the above provisions that after the death of the person in whose name arms licence stands (in the cases in hand we are concerned with deposit of the fire at on the death of the licence holder), the firm-arm is required to he deposited without unnecessary delay either with the officer-in-charge of the nearest Police Station or a licensed dealer. The depositor or, in case of his death, his legal representation is entitled to receive back the same on his becoming entitled, by virtue of the Act or any other law for the time being in force, to the possession of the arms at any time before expiry of the prescribed period. He is also entitled to dispose of or authorise disposal of the arms to any person entitled to have its possession and to receive the sale proceeds, except in cases of confiscation of the arms under section 37 of the Act. Where the arms lying in deposit is not received back or disposed of, as aforesaid, within the prescribed period, they are liable to e forefeited to the Government by order of the District Magistrate. Rule 46(4) prescribed period, they are liable to be forfeited to the Government by order of the District Magistrate. Rule 46(4) prescribes the period of one year within which the fire-arm can be received back or disposed of. The said period of one year is to be reckoned from the date of deposit. Where the fire-arm is subject matter of any suit as regards the ownership or where the person entitled to inherit is below sixteen years of age, the period of one year is to be reckoned from the date when the suit is decided or when the person concerned attains; the age of sixteen years, as he case may be. 7. It is to be kept in mind that firearm is a property, like any other property; difference lies in the fact that because of its dangerous potential as a weapon, the person concerned is not entitled to posses it like other items of property unless he holds licence to possess the same. Thus, where the holder of licence dies, its possession in the hands of his legal representative ceases to be lawful. Thus, where the holder of licence dies, its possession in the hands of his legal representative ceases to be lawful. It is for this reason that the law enjoins upon the person coming in physical possession of the fire-arms to deposit it with either officer-in-charge of the nearest Police Station or a licensed dealer with necessary intimation to the competent authority. The provisions of Section 21 and Rule 46, however, also enable the depositor or, in the case of his death, his legal representative to receive back the fire-arm or to dispose of the same. Where he wants to receive back the fire-arm, he is required to make application for licence. If no step in this regard is taken by depositor or his legal representative, in case of his death, for either receiving back the fire-arm or disposing of the same, the District Magistrate is empowered to pass an order of forefeiture to the Government. 8. It is thus obvious that if an application for licence has been made by either the depositor or his legal representative the fire-arm cannot be forfeited. The licensing authority is obliged to consider the application and pass orders thereon one way or the other. Rule 46 of the Arms Rules provides for the period within which steps are to be taken either for the release or for disposal of the fire-arm. If the law allows a certain period to the depositor or his legal representative to take steps in that regard, it is obvious that the District magistrate cannot lake any action for forfeiture unless the period expired. 9. In the cases in hand, so far as C.W.J.C. No. 13068 of 1996 is concerned, the fire-arm is said to have been deposited by the uncle of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of forefeiture on the ground that his uncle's son Uday Pratap Singh was granted licence on 17-12-92 and soon thereafter on 29-12-92 the petitioner had submitted application that the gun may be handed over to him (Uday Pratp Singh). Alternatively, it is contended that as the petitioner also applied for licence on 19-3-94, after recovering from the stroke of paralysis, the gun could not he forfeited. 10. Alternatively, it is contended that as the petitioner also applied for licence on 19-3-94, after recovering from the stroke of paralysis, the gun could not he forfeited. 10. If the petitioner's case that the gun was deposited by his uncle Sheo Murat Singh is accepted to he true, Uday Pratap Singh being his son, was entitled to receive back the gun as the legal representative of the depositor. It is not clear from the materials on record nor the District Magistrate seems to have gone into the question as to whether the gun was a joint family property consisting of Manager Singh (licensee). Sheo Murat Singh and other or exclusive property of Manager Singh. The provisions of Section 21 (2) (a) and (b) of the Act seem to suggest that the person who is entitled to receive back the deposited fire-arm or dispose of the same and appropriate the sale proceed must be the depositor himself or his legal representative, in case of his death. The term ‘legal representative, has not been defined in the Act. In my opinion, the terms 'depositor' or 'legal representative' have to be understood in the sense of owner. The actual depositor of the fire-arm may not be a person having right or interest in the fire-arm as a piece of property. If such person is not an heir of the deceased licensee, he cannot have any right to receive hack the deposited arm or to dispose of an appropriate the sale proceeds thereof without any consideration, which an owner of the property would have. According to me, therefore, the terms 'depositor' or 'legal representative' have to be given an extended meaning and understood in the sense of owner. Clause (ii) of the proviso to Rule 46(4), quoted above, gives sufficient indication of the fact that there may be dispute regarding the ownership of the fire-arm as an item of inheritance or otherwise. 1 I. In the instant case, if it is found that Sheo Murat Singh (petitioner's uncle) had an interest in the gun as an item of property, his son Uday Pratap Singh would be deemed to be a legal representative within the meaning of Section 21 entitled to receive back the arms and/or dispose of the same. And since licence had already been granted to him on 17-12-92, the gun could not he forfeited. And since licence had already been granted to him on 17-12-92, the gun could not he forfeited. Even if it be assumed that the application for licence was made by Uday Pratap Singh after expiry of period of one year, about which there is no evidence, the fact that before the District magistrate took steps for forfeiture, a licence had been duly granted to him, entitling him to receive back the gun, the District Magistrate should not have passed the order of forfeiture. The petitioner had consented to Uday Pratap Singh receiving back the fire-arm, after licence had been granted to him, and therefore there does not appear to be any dispute regarding ownership: The case requires further enquiry on the point as to whether Uday Pratap Singh could be called a legal representative within the meaning of Section 21 of the Act, as interpreted above, or not. Since no such enquiry has been held, the impugned order of the District magistrate is liable to be quashed. 12. In C.W.J.C. No. 291 of 1997 the facts are rather simpler. The petitioner has admittedly not made application for licence till date. His nephew applied but more than a year after the deposit of the fire-arm. The District magistrate, therefore, had taken step for forfeiture of the fire-arm on expiry of the period of one year reckoned from 2-1-88 being the date of deposit. Steps in this regard however were taken only sometime in 1993-94. In the meantime, admittedly, the petitioner's nephew had made the application for licence on 14-4-89. In my opinion, like C.W.J.C. No. 13068 of 1996, enquiry should be held as to be ownership of the gun as an item of property and if it is found that the gun belonged to joint family property of Shivadhar Singh and his brothers, Awadhesh Singh would be deemed to be his legal representative entitled to receive back the possession of the fire-arm on to dispose of and appropriate the sale proceeds of the same. I am therefore inclined to quash the impugned link, for foreiture in this case also and to direct the District Magistrate to enquire as to whether Awadhesh Singh can be held to be legal representative of the deceased licensee Shivadhar Singh. 13. I am therefore inclined to quash the impugned link, for foreiture in this case also and to direct the District Magistrate to enquire as to whether Awadhesh Singh can be held to be legal representative of the deceased licensee Shivadhar Singh. 13. The provisions of Section 21 of the Act read with Rule 46 of the Rules are designed to strike, a balance between the rights of the legal representative of the licence holder to receive back or to dispose of the fire-arm and the right of the State of have the same forfeited to the Government in case of in-ordinate delay in making application for receiving back the fire-arm, etc. It should be kept in mind that the deposited tire-arms are sold, after forfeiture, for a pittance. The price for which it is actually sold has absolutely no nexus with its market value. Being a valuable item of property capable of being sold in open market for a much higher price, the provisions relating to foreiture have to be liberally interpreted in favour of the heirs and legal representative of the deceased rather than in favour of the State. There may be bona fide cases where the person concerned is not able to take step for the disposal of the fire-arm within the prescribed period where he is not interested in its possession, or for receiving back its possession. But for some laches on his part, he should not be deprived of a valuable property. A person may not have fundamental right to possess fire-arm, nonetheless, as an item of property, he has right to dispose of the same to an eligible person in open market with the consent of the competent authority, and to receive proper price for the same. Thus, to conclude, while the District Magistrate has power to forfeit the fire-arm on expiry of the period prescribed under Rule 46, the better part of the discretion lies in giving opportunity to the applicant/claimant to receive back the fire-arm or to sell the same in accordance with law. 14. In the above premises, the impugned orders contained in Annexure 7 in C.W.J.C. No. 13068 of 1996 and Annexure 1 in C.W.J.C. No. 291 of 1997 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate. Kaimur (Bhabhua) for passing fresh orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made above. 15. 14. In the above premises, the impugned orders contained in Annexure 7 in C.W.J.C. No. 13068 of 1996 and Annexure 1 in C.W.J.C. No. 291 of 1997 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate. Kaimur (Bhabhua) for passing fresh orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made above. 15. These writ petitions are allowed accordingly. Writ Petition Allowed.