D. V SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this petition is a person who has, as of now a fire arm licence issued under Rule 4 of the Arms Rules 1962 indicated under the Arms Act, 1959 for possessing S. B. M. L. C. 116/3c. ( 2 ) IT appears, the said licence had been issued to the petitioner who is an agriculturist for the purpose of protecting the crops in his field which were subject to threats from forest animals like wild beers etc. The licence in favour of the petitioner has been renewed from time to time and it is the case of the petitioner that as of now, the said licence is valid up to 31-12-2003. ( 3 ) IT appears, at the instance of 4th respondent who is a neighbour, complaints had been registered before the Tahsildar and also before the local police that the petitioner is in the habit of threatening neighbours in view of certain pending property disputes between the parties and that the petitioner is of temparamental character and the 4th respondent apprehends for his safety and security and as such, had requested the authorities to take proper action against the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner is that an enquiry was held in this context and the Tahsildar came to the conclusion that there is no such threat as alleged by the 4th respondent and it appears, they had closed the proceedings by an order dated 12-3-2001, a copy of which has been produced as per Annexure-B to the writ petition, recording that, the petitioner is not a person who may misuse the gun in his possession. However, he was warned to be careful and in that context the gun licence was also renewed. ( 5 ) IT appears that the 4th respondent being still apprehensive, had complained further to the higher authorities viz. , Assistant Commissioner, Kundapur. The Assistant Commissioner who had looked into the matter had further directed the Tahsildar to look into the complaint, particularly having regard to the fact that the area was sensitive and the complaint was that the petitioner was in the habit of bringing out his gun openly in front of the house and display it threatening others and under such circumstances, the matter may require probing. ( 6 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved by such directions which had been issued by the Assistant Commissioner to the Tahsildar as per communication dated 21-8-2001, a copy of which has been produced at Annexure-C, had carried the matter further to the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi. But he did not meet with any success as the Deputy Commissioner agreed with the views expressed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has also clarified that the petitioner has not suffered any adverse orders at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner and the direction to the Tahsildar is in his administrative capacity and as such no need to interfere with the directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner. It is being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 14-9-2001, a copy of which has been produced at Annexure-D and the directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner to the Tahsildar, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above writ petition. ( 7 ) SRI Ajit Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Assistant Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to entertain any appeal or representation as against the order passed by the Tahsildar in as much as an appeal against an order passed by the Tahsildar lie, under Rule 5 of the Arms Rules only to the Deputy Commissioner and as such the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner is one without jurisdiction and prays for quashing of the order containing such direction. ( 8 ) SRI. Sampath Anand Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent on the other hand submits that the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner was in the nature of an administrative direction by a higher authority to a lower authority. It is also submitted that the Assistant Commissioner, as also Deputy Commissioner are Officers who have considerable administrative responsibility and it is also their duty to ensure maintenance of law and order in the area and necessary stage for such purpose may be taken by them. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not suffered any adverse order as of now and there was no occasion for him to invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority earlier. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel submits that the question of quashing of direction issued by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner does not arise. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not suffered any adverse order as of now and there was no occasion for him to invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority earlier. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel submits that the question of quashing of direction issued by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner does not arise. The action of the Assistant Commissioner is well within his power and jurisdiction is the submission. ( 9 ) IT is a fact that the petitioner has not suffered any adverse order as on the date when the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner is only apprehensive about further action that may be taken against him for cancellation of licence. ( 10 ) A person who has been issued with a gun licence is bound by the provisions of the Arms Rules and Act and he is also bound by the other provisions of law. Any action by a person possessing licence, in violation of any statutory provisions and if constitutes an offence, the authorities are bound to take action as per law. No person has a right to possess a gun when there are certain complaints against the conduct and actions of the person who is in possession of the gun is posing threat, for the safety and security of the neighbours. The authorities are bound to take notice of such complaints and act in accordance with law. It is such an action, the authorities have taken. No fault can be found on the part of the authorities in a proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and no direction can be issued to a Statutory Authority not to take any action which is necessary in the larger public interest and under relevant statutory provisions. If there is a proposal for cancellation of the licence, the authorities are always bound to follow the provisions of the Act and the Rules provided under the relevant law. I do not find any real grievance of the petitioner to grant relef in a proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be given a proper opportunity, if there is a proposal to cancel his licence. I do not find any real grievance of the petitioner to grant relef in a proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be given a proper opportunity, if there is a proposal to cancel his licence. ( 12 ) IT is needless to state that an authority who is acting in a statutory capacity, in exercise of any statutory functions and as a quasi-judicial authority, has to always observe the principles of natural justice and to follow the procedure provided under the relevant statutory provisions. ( 13 ) FURTHER action if any may be taken by the authorities in consonance with the statutory provision. I do not find any scope or justification to issue a writ in a matter like this. The petition is accordingly rejected without the issue of rule. ( 14 ) SRI Shashidhar S. Karamadi, learned Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within six weeks from today. Petition rejected. --- *** --- .