JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel representing the respondents. Perused the record. The petitioner held a licence issued under the provisions of the Arms Act, which entitled him to keep a fire arm (a .315 bore rifle). The licence issued in favour of the petitioner had been suspended by the licensing authority vide the order dated 2.4.1996, true copy of which has been filed as annexure P/3. A final order was passed on 24.9.1996, (true copy of which has been filed as annexure P/4) whereunder it was directed that the period of suspension of the licence shall continue till the disposal of the criminal cases pending against him. The order of the licensing authority referred to hereinabove was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority. The appellate authority vide its judgment and order dated 2.3.1998, remanded the matter to the licensing authority for considering the prevailing circumstances also for coming to the conclusion as to whether the order of suspension of the fire arm licence of the petitioner deserved to be continued or not. It may be noticed in the aforesaid connection that while passing the order dated 24.9.1996, the licensing authority had taken into account the criminal cases referred to in the said order as well as in the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, dated 3.1.1997; true copy of which has been filed as annexure P/5. The petitioner asserts that all the criminal cases referred to hereinabove terminated in his favour excepting only one case which was related to an offence under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is contended that instead of remanding the case, the appellate authority should have set aside the order passed by the licensing authority as the criminal cases stood terminated in favour of the petitioner. So far as the case under the aforesaid Act, was concerned, it is urged that it could not by any stretch of imagination disentitle the petitioner to hold the licence as it could not be taken to be a circumstance indicating that the restoration of the licence will create law and order problem or could affect public peace or public safety. The appellate authority had directed the licensing authority to decide the matter finally within a period of two months. The appellate authority had directed the licensing authority to decide the matter finally within a period of two months. The aforesaid order of the appellate authority is dated 2.3.1998. The licensing authority should have taken care to ensure that the matter relating to the suspension of the petitioner's licence is finally disposed of within the period stipulated in the order passed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority had directed the licensing authority to take into account the prevailing circumstances to come to a definite conclusion as to whether it will not be in public interest to restore the licence. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on record, no exception can be taken to the aforesaid view expressed by the appellate authority. However, considering the totality of the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the licensing authority, respondent No. 3 to decide the matter relating to the restoration of licence to the petitioner complying with the order passed by the appellate authority within a period not later than two weeks' from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the said authority. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within 3 days.