Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner Gurdial Singh has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated March 30, 2001 Annexure P5 passed by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana and order dated May 14, 2001 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, whereby the arms licence issued to the petitioner for 315 bore rifle No. 3680 with nine cartridges of 315 bore has been ordered to be cancelled. The aforesaid orders have been appended as Annexures P5 and P7 respectively with the present petition. 2. Certain facts may be noticed. The petitioner states that he remained Sarpanch of village Kartarpur, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana for a period of 20 years. During the last elections, the post of Sarpanch of the village was reserved for a lady Sarpanch and, as such, the petitioner could not contest the aforesaid elections. Instead, Smt. Jatinder Kaur wife of Paramjit Singh who is the nephew of the petitioner contested for the aforesaid post. She was opposed by one Smt. Jaswinder Kaur. After election, the aforesaid Smt. Jaswinder Kaur was declared elected. Because of the aforesaid political rivalry, the petitioner claims, the aforesaid Smt. Jaswinder Kaur had been nursing a grudge against him. 3. The petitioner further claims that the aforesaid Smt. Jaswinder Singh along with her husband started committing irregularities in the conduct of affairs of gram panchayat. A complaint was filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid Smt. Jaswinder Kaur to the Director Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh in April 2000. The matter was marked for enquiry to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. 4. According to the petitioner, as a counter blast to the aforesaid complaint, the aforesaid Sarpanch Smt. Jaswinder Kaur alongwith some other Panchayat members reported against him that he was trying to encroach upon the panchayat land which was stated to be in front of his house and that on objection having been raised by the Sarpanch and the aforesaid Panchayat members, he threatened with the said licensed gun. Under the circumstances, a complaint was made by the aforesaid Sarpanch and the Ranches to cancel the arms licence of the petitioner. 5. In response to the said complaint, the District Magistrate respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner for the cancellation of his arms licence. Under the circumstances, a complaint was made by the aforesaid Sarpanch and the Ranches to cancel the arms licence of the petitioner. 5. In response to the said complaint, the District Magistrate respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner for the cancellation of his arms licence. The petitioner appeared before the District Magistrate and explained his entire position. He specifically contended before the District Magistrate that he had never misused his licensed gum nor any criminal case is pending in this regard, The allegation with regard to making any encroachment upon the panchayat land was also specifically denied. 6. The petitioner further states that during the period of militancy in the State of Punjab he had helped the police to identify the miscreants and was even attacked by the extremists. Upon this, he was provided with the security covers and even the police post was set up at his house. The petitioner has even attached a copy of the site plan An-nexure P2 with the present petition whereby it is shown that there was no panchayat land in front of his house as there is only a road in front of his house. The petitioner further maintains in the petition that on the directions of the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, the police had also verified the allegations levelled against the Sarpanch and the Panchayat members and found no truth in that. The copies of two police reports dated September 2, 2000 and December 7, 200 have been appended as Annexures P.3 and P4, respectively with the present petition. The petitioner complains that in spite of the aforesaid two reports in favour of the petitioner, the District Magistrate, without taking into consideration the said reports, vide order dated March 30, 2001, has ordered the cancellation of his arms licence and directed that the licence and ammunition be deposited. A copy of the aforesaid order dated March 30, 2001 has been appended as Annexure P5 with the present petition. 7. The petitioner felt aggrieved against the aforesaid order and has approached the appellate authority i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. The aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Division Commissioner, Patiala Division respondent No. 1 vide order dated May 14, 2001. A copy of the aforesaid order passed by the Divisional Commissioner has been appended as An-nexure P7 with the present petition. 8. The aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Division Commissioner, Patiala Division respondent No. 1 vide order dated May 14, 2001. A copy of the aforesaid order passed by the Divisional Commissioner has been appended as An-nexure P7 with the present petition. 8. Now the petitioner is aggrieved against the aforesaid orders Annexures P5 and P7 and has approached this Court through the present petition. 9. A notice of petition was issued to the respondents. They have put in appearance, A joint written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and No. 2. The action of the cancellation of the arms licence of the petitioner vide orders Annexure P5 and P7 has been defended. The stand adopted by the respondents in the written statement is that the Sarpanch and other Panchayat members having made a complaint against the petitioner, the matter was enquired into, after serving show cause notice upon the petitioner and granting him personal hearing in the matter, and thereafter his arms licence was cancelled. 10. The respondents have further stated in the written statement that the allegations levelled by the petitioner against sarpanch Smt. Jaswinder Kaur were also enquired into by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Doraha and vide report dated March 1, 2002 the said allegations were found to be baseless. A copy of the aforesaid report dated March 1, 2002 submitted by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Doraha has been appended as Annexure Rule 1 with the written statement. 11. We have heard Shri Kuldeep Sanwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashok Aggarwal, the learned Additional advocate General, Punjab for the respondents and with their assistance have also gone through the relevant record of the case. 12. In our considered opinion, the present petition deserves to succeed. 13. The factum of the petitioner having been granted the aforesaid arms licence No. 642/Sept./Ludhiana in the year 1972 has not been denied. It has not been averred by the respondents at all in the written statement that at any stage after the grant of the aforesaid licence, the petitioner had ever misused his licensed arm or had ever been involved in any criminal case. It is apparent that the troubles started when the petitioner remitted his office as Sarpanch when the aforesaid post was reserved for a lady-Sar-panch. It is apparent that the troubles started when the petitioner remitted his office as Sarpanch when the aforesaid post was reserved for a lady-Sar-panch. Smt. Jatinder Kaur wife of Paramjit, who was nephew of the petitioner contested the election but remained unsuccessful against Smt. Jaswinder Kaur who was declared as a Sarpanch of the village. Thus, the fact remains that there has been a political rivalry between the petitioner and his family members on the one hand and Smt. Jaswinder Kaur and her husband on the other hand. The petitioner himself has stated in the petitioner that he made a complaint against the working of Smt. Jaswinder kaur. Although the respondents have stated that the aforesaid complaint was duly enquired into by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer and was found to be without any basis, as per the report, a copy whereof has been appended as Annexure R1, but the fact remains that Smt. Jaswinder Kaur and other Panchayat members themselves made a complaint against the petitioner for cancellation of the arm licence only thereafter. 14. When the matter was pending before the learned District Magistrate with regard to the cancellation of the arms licence of the petitioner, report was sought from the police of police station Payal. The Station House Officer submitted a report dated September 2, 2000 enquiring in detail the entire matter with regard to alleged misuser of the arms licence by the petitioner and reported that the complaint was merely made by Smt. Jaswinder Kaur in connivance with Harpal Singh her husband and other Panches to get the licence of the petitioner cancelled. A copy of the said report dated September 2, 2000 submitted by the Station House Officer of Police Station Payal has been appended as Annexure P3 with the petitioner. 15. At this stage it might be relevant to notice in detail the aforesaid report as under: "It is submitted that the verification of the above said letter was got done from Nachhatar Singh A.S.I., Police Post, Maloud. It was found from verification that Gurdial Singh Ex.Sarpanch has licensed rifle 315 bore No. 3680 with 9 cartridges alive of 315 bore. In his name licence No. 642-Sept-Ludhiana is entered since 1972. He has been sarpanch of the village for 20 years. Now due to lady Sarpanch reserve seat he got contested her nephews wife Jatinder Kaur against present sarpanch Jaswinder Kaur. In his name licence No. 642-Sept-Ludhiana is entered since 1972. He has been sarpanch of the village for 20 years. Now due to lady Sarpanch reserve seat he got contested her nephews wife Jatinder Kaur against present sarpanch Jaswinder Kaur. Jatinder Kaur was defeated by some votes. Gurdial Singh wanted to raise the internal walls of the house which had collapsed. Harpal Singh husband of present Sarpanch do not allow him to raise the walls. Its enquiry is pending with BDO Doraha. BDO inspected the spot on 29.8.2000. During extremist wave for the defence of Gurdial Singh and his family police guard and gunmen were provided to him. Gurdial Singh is having above said rifle since 1972. Harpal Singh by conniving with his wife Sarpanch Jaswinder Kaur and other Panches wants to get the licence cancelled and is getting applications sent. In this regard, statement of Ex.Sarpanch Gurdial Singh and Smt. Jaswinder Kaur Sarpanch were recorded which are attached herewith." 16. Another report was submitted by Incharge of Police Post, Maloud dated December 7, 2000. The aforesaid report has been appended as Annexure P4 with the petition. The aforesaid report reads as under: "It is submitted that on the above said subject earlier enquiry was done by A.S.I. Nachhatar Singh and S.I. Arvind Puri S.H.O., Payal and now also secret verification was done about the circumstances. Gurdial Singh Ex-Sarpanch is having rifle 315 bore with cartridge, as per licence No. 642/Sept/Ludhiana since 1972 and he has been Sarpanch of the village for 20 years. As per earlier verification he was provided official gunmen. For continuing his licence, police has no objection as per circumstances. Even the report is sent for competent orders." 17. From the perusal of the aforesaid order Annexure P5 passed by the Additional District Magistrate it transpires that the aforesaid police reports have not been taken into consideration at all, while passing the said order. The order Annexure P5 has been merely passed by the learned Additional District Judge on the basis of oral statement of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Sarpanch and some other member Panches. In our considered opinion, the non-consideration of the aforesaid two reports by the learned Additional District Magistrate and merely acting upon the oral statements of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur and other panchayat members, who apparently were politically opposed to the petitioner, has caused a grave prejudice to the petitioner. In our considered opinion, the non-consideration of the aforesaid two reports by the learned Additional District Magistrate and merely acting upon the oral statements of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur and other panchayat members, who apparently were politically opposed to the petitioner, has caused a grave prejudice to the petitioner. When the police of Police Post, Maloud and the Police Station Payal found themselves that the petitioner had never misused the aforesaid licenced arm, then there was no occasion for the Additional District Magistrate to cancel the arms licence of the petitioner. The learned District Magistrate, while considering the aforesaid matter has completely overlooked the fact that the petitioner had been granted the arms licence in the year 1972 and there has been no occasion to make any complaint with regard to any misuser by him since then. The learned Divisional Commissioner while passing the order Annexure P7 has also neither adverted to the said police reports nor taken into consideration the other attending circumstances, like the grant of licence to the petitioner since 1972, with there being no allegation of misuser by him since then. 18. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in allowing the present petition. Thus, the present writ petition is allowed and the orders Annexures P5 and P7 are hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.