Judgment N.Pandey, J. 1. Petitioners in these cases are aggrieved by a common order of the State Government dated 63-1993 (Annexure-2), whereby and where under the prayer for renewal of the gun manufacturing licences was refused. 2. Heard the learned Advocates for the petitioners well as the State and with their consent all these cases along with I.As are disposed of at this stage itself. 3. Petitioners were granted separate licences for manufacturing of gun barrels at Manger and the last renewal of their licences was granted on 27-8-1997. The prayer for renewal of the same has refused on the ground that there are certain dues against them with respect to rental of industrial estate as well as amount of sales tax. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned decision of the Government is quite arbitrary and against the spirit of the statutory requirements. Because from a bare reference to the provisions of Secs. 14 and 15 of the Arms Act read with Rule 54 of the Arms Rules it would appear that an application for renewal of the licence has to be granted if all the conditions enumerated under those provisions are fulfilled. None of the provisions has empowered the State Government or any other licensing authority to refuse renewal on account of the dues for the payment of rental and sales tax. He contended that such an arbitrary decision of the authorities is in utter violation of the provisions of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India under which an individual gets fundamental right to carryon any business subject to reasonable restrictions. He further contended that apart from the statutory requirements as noticed above, even on facts also the allegation of such dues against the petitioners is unfounded and incorrect. Because a bare reference to the averments made in different writ petitions would indicate that in certain cases certificate proceedings have already been stayed. 5. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State reiterating the same stand what was taken in the impugned order. Save and except the allegation of non-payment of rental and certain amount of sales tax no other reason has been as signed nor the learned counsel for the State could point out any provisions which may require refusal of licence in case of dues of rental or the amount of sales tax. 6. Save and except the allegation of non-payment of rental and certain amount of sales tax no other reason has been as signed nor the learned counsel for the State could point out any provisions which may require refusal of licence in case of dues of rental or the amount of sales tax. 6. On behalf of the petitioners it has been pointed out that previously also even the State Government vide its letter dated 27-8-1997 to the District Magistrate (Annexure-4), had clarified that renewal of gun manufacturing licence cannot be withheld on the ground of non-payment of Government dues of rental or it be with respect to sales tax. Accordingly. a direction was issued for renewal of the licence for the year] 997. But when the term for renewal for the year 1998 came, similar objections are being raised. 7. From the facts stated above, there appears no dispute that petitioners were duly granted licence to manufacturing of the guns which were also renewed till 1997. It is also true that the State Government by its letter dated 278. 1997 (Annexure-4) had already informed the District Magistrate, Munger that renewal of the licence cannot be refused on the ground of arrears of rent or on account of non-payment of the sales tax. Schedule III of Form IX of the Rules. prescribes certain information to be furnished by the licensee for grant of manufacturing licences. As per column 3 of this Form, a licensee is required to disclose place of business, factory or shop. A licensee cannot change the place of business nor he can get renewal of the licence in case of any change without permission of the licensing authority. 8. Though in the impugned order as well as the counter affidavits, it has been stated that certificate proceedings have been started against the petitioners for the realisation of the amount of arrears of rent but no material has been shown whether the petitioners have changed their place of business or their allotments have been cancelled. This goes without saying that as per the requirement of the Rules and the conditions prescribed in the form in case of change of place licence cannot be renewed unless due approval and inspection etc. are done. This goes without saying that as per the requirement of the Rules and the conditions prescribed in the form in case of change of place licence cannot be renewed unless due approval and inspection etc. are done. Some of the petitioners have also denied the allegations with regard to dues of sales tax and stated that sales tax authorities had also granted certificate in this regard. 9. Therefore taking into consideration the facts stated above. I set aside the impugned order of the State Government with a direction to the respondent No.2 to pass a fresh order in terms of the observations made above and having regard to different statutory requirements preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid both these applications as well as I.As are disposed of.