Judgment :- R. P. Kuppusamy, the petitioner herein, is seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, by calling for the records in connection with the order of the first respondent, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Madras, in his proceedings No. D. Dis (Q) 19545/89 (AA. A. No. 28/89), dated 10-10-1991 and the order of the Additional District Magistrate, the second respondent herein, in M.M. 205752/78 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to re-issue the Gun licence to the petitioner, which has been cancelled. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that in order to protect his farms and cattles and for self-protection, he applied for a Gun licence and the same was granted by the second respondent on 12-10-1987 for the possession of DBBL Gun, which was valid up to 31-12-1987 and that the said licence was subsequently renewed on 7-4-1988 up to the period 31-12-1988 and that therefore, in order to renew for further period, he filed a petition for an extension on 28-12-1988, but the same was dismissed by an order dated 7-1-1989 by the second respondent and the appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the first respondent on 10-10-1991 and since, further revision was not entertained by the Government, he has filed this writ petition, seeking the relief referred to above. 3. According to the respondents, the earlier licence granted on 12-10-1987 was renewed on the condition that the petitioner should purchase the Gun within six months and that even after the renewal by the order dated 7-4-1988 for the period up to 31-12-1988, he did not purchase the Gun, as per the conditions stipulated in the licence, and that therefore, the licence was not renewed by the second respondent by the order dated 28-12-1988 and that therefore, the orders passed, refusing for renewal of licence, cannot be said to be illegal. 4. In the light of the above facts, the counsel for both the parties would elaborately argue on the strength of their respective pleas. 5. After having considered the materials and the rival contentions, I am not able to find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned orders dated 7-1-1989 and 10-10-1991, passed by the respondents, for the following reasons. 6. 5. After having considered the materials and the rival contentions, I am not able to find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned orders dated 7-1-1989 and 10-10-1991, passed by the respondents, for the following reasons. 6. The licence dated 12-10-1987 was granted on the condition that the petitioner shall purchase the Gun and produce the weapon for inspection before the Inspector of Police and Tahsildar at Udumalpet, failing which the licence shall be ceased to be in force. As per this condition, the petitioner is duty bound to purchase and produce the Gun on or before 11-4-1988. 7. On the other hand, the petitioner sought for extension of time for renewal of licence in the year 1988. 8. The renewal order dated 7-4-1988 does not show that the petitioner has sought for extension of time for purchase of a Gun. But, in the application dated 28-12-1988 for the extension of further period of licence, for the year 1989, the petitioner mentioned that he was not able to purchase the Gun and as he was in hospital, he failed to send an application for extension of time for the purchase of the same. But, it is noticed, as indicated earlier, that the petitioner had sent a petition dated 28-12-1988 for extension of further period. 9. The above petition dated 28-12-1988 was considered by the second respondent and the order was passed on 7-1-1989, refusing to renew the licence, as the condition stipulated in the licence had not bee complied with and the reasons given by the petitioner for not purchasing the Gun were not acceptable. 10. In the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 2-2-1989, the first respondent passed an order dated 10-10-1991, after hearing the counsel and perusing the records, confirming the order of the second respondent dated 7-1-1989. 11. The main point urged in this petition by the counsel for the writ petitioner, challenging the above orders, on the strength the decisions in AIR 1968 All 383 (State U. P. v. Jaswant Singh Sarna) and 1987 All LJ 1209 (Ram Kripal Singh v. State of U.P. is that the orders, refusing the renewal of licence were not passed in accordance with law, as the proper opportunity was not give to the petitioner, by the authorities, before passing the impugned orders. 12. 12. On going through the above decisions, it is clear that the Allahabad High Court would hold that it is desirable for the authorities concerned to give an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, before disposing of his renewal application, and that mere delay in making the application for renewal of licence, would not be a ground for rejecting the request for renewal. 13. In my opinion, the facts of those cases would not apply to the present case, in view of the fact that the petitioner, in this writ petition, admittedly, did not comply with the condition of the licence granted on 12-10-1987, that he should purchase the Gun on or before 11-4-1988 and that even when he filed an application for renewal of licence for one year for the year 1988, he neither informed about the inability to purchase the Gun nor sought for the extension of time. But, however, it is seen from the order dated 7-4-1988, the licence was renewed for the period up to 31-12-1988. Therefore, it is not a case of mere delay, but it deals with the situation where the petitioner did not comply with the condition. 14. As indicated above, in the appeal, the counsel for the petitioner was fully heard by the second respondent. However, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, there is no record to show that the second respondent gave an opportunity of hearing the petitioner. But, on a perusal of the records, it is quite obvious that no such opportunity was sought for from the second respondent nor was it reported to the appellate authority about the non-hearing. 15. On the other hand, the second respondent considered the contents of the petition dated 28-12-1988 and found that the condition was not complied with the reason given by the petitioner for non-compliance also was not acceptable. 16. A reading of the provisions of Sections 14 to 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 would also clearly reveal that the Licensing Authority can refuse to grant the licence, where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act and that every licence, originally granted can be refused to be renewed, if the condition of the licence was not complied with, by recording reasons in writing. 17. 17. Under those circumstances, I am of the view that the orders, refusing for renewal, cannot be said to be illegal and consequently, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to apply fresh for issue of licence, if the circumstances so warrant, within two months from today, by giving the materials necessitating for the possession of Gun and in that event, the Licensing Authority is directed to consider the said prayer for the issue of fresh licence, after observing the required procedures and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass an order in accordance with law. 18. It is further made clear that this dismissal of the writ petition, would not in any way stand in the way of the authority to consider the petitioner's prayer for issue of fresh licence, taking into consideration of the prevailing situation. 19. In the result, writ petition is dismissed with the above directions. No costs. Petition dismissed.