ANJANI KUMAR, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the licensing authority revoking fire-arm licence of the petitioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority maintained the order passed by the licensing authority and dismissed the appeal. 3. A perusal of the order of the licensing authority demonstrates that only reason on which the licence of the petitioner has been revoked is that the sons of the petitioners have criminal history and considering this fact that they were involved in several cases and there is apprehension that the petitioners fire-arm licence may be misused, therefore, the licence has been revoked. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged this finding of the licensing authority on the ground that the same is based on no material nor there is any single sentence in the order which can justify the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the licensing authority. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 1989 A. L. R. page 519. 5. I have gone through the aforesaid judgment and for the reasons stated in the aforesaid judgment with which I am in full agreement, this petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. The order passed by the licensing authority dated 10th February, 1999 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) and the order of the appellate authority dated 21st March, 1999 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) are quashed. The fire- arm of the petitioner which was directed to be deposited pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 24th July, 1997 shall be returned back to the petitioner immediately. Petition allowed. .