Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In this application, the petitioner is desirous of issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 23-9-91 passed by respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in M.P. Case No. 44/90 whereby the arms licence No. 1039 of Purnea for gun and arms licence No. 141/76 of Patna for revolver issued in his favour have been cancelled and also the order dated 3-3-92 passed by respondent No. 3, the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in Dhanbad Arms Appeal No. 67/91 by which the petitioners appeal against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. 2. The petitioners case is that the aforementioned arms belonging * to the petitioners were seized by the Town Inspector of Police, Jharia, district-Dhanbad under the orders and directions of the then Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad and a proceeding for cancellation of arms licences of the petitioner was started by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the licensing Authority). The petitioner appeared and filed show cause. However, the licensing authority, in terms of the order dated 10-9-97, directed the petitioner to move again after disposal of criminal case pending against him for release of the licence. The petitioner contended that after the criminal case being Kanke P.S. Case No. 23(5) 73 corresponding to G.R. No. 1234/73 was disposed of and the petitioner was acquitted, he again made an application before the licensing authority for release of his aforementioned arms. The licensing authority called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad who reported that the petitioner has been acquitted. The licensing authority also called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Ranchi who also reported that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and there was nothing adverse against him. The licensing authority, however, after hearing the petitioner, passed the impugned order cancelling the arms licences of the petitioner. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, who dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the licensing authority. 3. Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that the licence of the petitioner could not have been cancelled when the petitioner was either acquitted or discharged in the criminal cases. 3. Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that the licence of the petitioner could not have been cancelled when the petitioner was either acquitted or discharged in the criminal cases. According to the learned Counsel, in absence of sufficient material to the effect that the petitioner was involved in offences involving danger to security of public safety and tranquility, the impugned order of cancellation of licence cannot be sustained in law. Learned Counsel lastly submitted that the licensing authority exceeded in exercise of his jurisdiction inasmuch as on the report of the Superintendent of Police of Dhanbad arid Ranchi districts the licensing authority had no option but to release the arms of the petitioner which were seized in connection with a criminal case. 4. Before appreciating the contentions raised by the learned Counsel it would be useful to look into the relevant provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 , Sec. 17 of the Act empowers the licensing authority to revoke or suspend the licence if the licensing authority is satisfied, besides other facts, that the holder of licence for any reason is unfit to hold a licence under the Act. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that there must be subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority that the holder of licence is not fit to continue holding of licence. In my opinion therefore, if the licensing authority is satisfied of the fact that continued existence of fire arms licences with a person charged with various offences may endanger security of public peace and public safety, then revocation or cancellation of licence under Sec. 17 cannot be said to be arbitrary or without jurisdiction. 5. Coming back to the instant case, from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it appears that the petitioner was involved in so many criminal cases in Dhanbad and Ranchi districts. It is stated that the petitioner obtained his arms licences from Purnea and Patna by suppressing material facts on the basis of wrong information and manoeuvering though he himself belongs to Bhojpur district. It is further stated that the petitioner has misused his arm licence in the past and there is every chance of misusing the same in future. 6. It is stated that the petitioner obtained his arms licences from Purnea and Patna by suppressing material facts on the basis of wrong information and manoeuvering though he himself belongs to Bhojpur district. It is further stated that the petitioner has misused his arm licence in the past and there is every chance of misusing the same in future. 6. From a perusal of the impugned order passed by the licensing authority it appears that he took notice of the fact that the petitioner hails from Bhojpur district but it appears that he is residing at Dhanbad and has obtained gun licence from Purnea and revolver licence from Patna district. The licensing authority further found that the petitioner was involved in so many criminal cases in Dhanbad and even in Ranchi and the licences were abused in the past and there are chances of misusing the arms in future also. The licensing Authority further observed that on the basis of shady past of the petitioner and his ability to manoeuvre the arms licences from the districts other than his home district or the district in which he is residing, it is clear that he is not a fit person to whom the arms licence should be issued. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not denied or disputed the fact that the petitioner obtained arms licences from the districts other than the district where he has been residing and there has been misuse of arms of the petitioner. Learned Counsel has also not disputed the fact that the petitioner was involved in so many criminal cases. Taking all these facts into consideration the licensing authority recorded his satisfaction that the petitioner is not a fit person to hold licence for arms. The question, therefore, falls for consideration is whether this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution should interfere with the said order of the licencing authority. 8. Law has been well settled by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kapildeo Singh V/s. State of Bihar 1987 PLJR 385 , that under Indian law there is no fundamental right to carry arms. It is the privilege conferred by the Act and other similar Statute which primarily leave grant thereof in the discretion of the licensing authority. It is the privilege conferred by the Act and other similar Statute which primarily leave grant thereof in the discretion of the licensing authority. Their Lordships further observed that it is the subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority that for some reason the holder of a licence has become unfit to hold licence. It is equally well settled that satisfaction of licensing authority for cancellation of licence is justiciable but the High Court acting under writ jurisdiction cannot substitute itself in place of the authorities and examine sufficiency of reasons of cancellation of licence. Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary. The High Court does not interfere with the order of statutory authority unless it is satisfied that there has been a patent illegality, lack of jurisdiction or errors of law apparent on the face of the records or that some principles of natural justice has been violated. 9. As noticed above, the petitioner obtained licence from two different district and not from the district where he is residing. Moreover, the petitioner was involved in several criminal cases. Taking all these facts into consideration the licensing authority, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, came to his subjecting satisfaction that the petitioner is not a fit person to hold a arm licence. The Commissioner/appellate authority before whom the appeal was filed considered the case of the petitioner and also came to the same conclusion and dismissed the appeal by a reasoned order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this Court should not interfere with the said order in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution particularly when the order is neither without jurisdiction nor is there any patent illegality in the said order. 10. For the aforementioned reasons I find no merits in this writ application which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.