Judgment R.S.Garg, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State Government. 2. The petitioner Ranvijay Kumar Patel, Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Surhari has come to this Court inter-alia submitting that the order contained in Annexure-4 passed on 1-10-2001 by the District Magistrate canceling the arms licence and directing confiscation of the gun be quashed. 3. The facts in short are that Licence No. 230/60 of Police Station Eakhtiyarpur was issued in favour of the Mukhiya of the said Gram Panchayat. It is not in dispute before me that on 14-9-1973 one Hari Narain Singh son of the Mukhiya, Birendra Kumar Singh surrendered the gun with two cartridges with the State Government through Police Department inter-alia submitting that said Birendra Kumar Singh was murdered and case was registered u/s. 302 and as he was not entitled to carry the arms he was surrendering the same. The arms were received by the police and were kept in their Malkhana. It appears that since after 1973 nobody took are of the said arms neither the police reported the matter to the District Magistrate for taking confiscation proceedings nor any other person who took over the office of Mukhiya made any application to the State Government for release of the arms or renewal of the licence, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since after 1973 election of the present petitioner nobody occupied the office of Mukhiya. It appears from Annexure-2 that the petitioner in his capacity as Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj. Surhari made an application to the District Magistrate that a direction for release of the gun and the cartridges be issued. After receiving the said application the District Magistrate issued a notice to show-cause that why the licence be not cancelled and the gun and cartridges be not confiscated. The petitioner submitted his show-cause and informed the authority that the gun remained in the Malkhana as there was no Mukhiya of the place and as the office of the Mukhiya has the perpetual succession the gun and cartridges be released. By the impugned order contained in Annexure-4 the District Magistrate observed that a licence is issued in the name of a person so that he may defend his person and property. By the impugned order contained in Annexure-4 the District Magistrate observed that a licence is issued in the name of a person so that he may defend his person and property. He also observed that in the present matter the licence was issued in the name of Mukhiya/office of Mukhiya, Therefore, it may lead to a complication that every time a Mukhiya is elected then such Mukhiya will have to obtain a licence. Observing further that in sensitive area like Nalanda a number of licence have already been issued, the reform before issuance of a licence a complete investigation was necessary, thereafter he observed that it was not necessary to issue a licence in the name of the office. Further, while rejecting the application for return cancelling the licence and directing confiscation he observed that if the Mukhiya wants a licence in his personal capacity then he may make an application, which would be decided on its own merits. Being aggrieved by the said orders in stead of going into a statutory appeal the petitioner has come to this Court. 4. Today the petitioner has made an application that Gram Panchayat Raj, Surhari be joined as party petitioner No. 2. Because the petitioner the Mukhiya in fact has come to seek protection of the interest of the Gram Panchayat. 5. Learned Counsel for the State has raised two preliminary objection. According to him when a statutory appeal is available under the Act then this Court should not enter in the matter. The arguments would have been justifiable in a case where the order prima-facie appears to be within jurisdiction. Even otherwise the bar of alternative remedy is not of universal application. If the order passed by the subordinate Tribunal or any officer is patently illegal and does not stand the scrutiny on the touch stone of legality, rational and logic, the objection would not benefit the respondents/objectors. The said objection is overruled. 6. It is next contended that in absence of appropriate resolution and Vakalatnama for and on behalf of Panchayat, the Panchayat can not be joined as party Petitioner No. 2. In the opinion of this Court the objection is hypertechnical and has been raised just for the sake of raising an objection. The petitioner is the elected Mukhiya. 6. It is next contended that in absence of appropriate resolution and Vakalatnama for and on behalf of Panchayat, the Panchayat can not be joined as party Petitioner No. 2. In the opinion of this Court the objection is hypertechnical and has been raised just for the sake of raising an objection. The petitioner is the elected Mukhiya. He represents the Panchayat everywhere and in a case where he is required to file a writ application for and on behalf of Panchayat then he himself would be the authority to engage a Counsel for the Panchayat. Even otherwise the Panchayats presence would not be necessary because the question of an application by the Panchyat was not raised before the District Magistrate, who had decided the petitioners application on the ground and in the premises that the petitioner was before the District Magistrate to protect the interest of the Panchayat. Even in absence of the Panchayat the relief can be granted to the petitioner. The second objection is also overruled. 7. I have already referred to the order passed by the District Magistrate. The order of The District Magistrate is basically on two grounds firstly, that at a sensitive place like Nalanda number of the arms have already been issued an secondly a licence can not be issued in the name of the office but should have been issued in the name of a particular person. 8. In the counter filed by the respondents the order passed by the District Magistrate is not supported on those two ground on which it was passed. The counter affidavit says that u/s. 21 (2) of the Arms Act a deposited arm can be released before the expiry of the period prescribed. It is further said that in the present case no application for release was made within one year, therefore, the District Magistrate was obliged to confiscate the arms. Repeatedly I have gone through the orders passed by the District Magistrate but unfortunately could not find the said ground in his order which is now sought to be added to support the order of the District Magistrate. If the District Magistrate has passed an order on certain grounds then the order must be justified on the said grounds. Dawn of the wisdom after the dusk would not help the District Magistrate or the State Government in justifying the order on any other ground. 9. If the District Magistrate has passed an order on certain grounds then the order must be justified on the said grounds. Dawn of the wisdom after the dusk would not help the District Magistrate or the State Government in justifying the order on any other ground. 9. During the course of the arguments it was contended that the arms licence could be cancelled u/s. 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 because such a power is vested in the District Magistrate Strong reliance has been placed upon Sub-sec. (3) Clause (a) and Clause (d) of sec. 17 of the Act to make this submission: "Sec. 17(3) says that the licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence:- "Clause (a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or" "Clause (d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or" 10. Clause (a) is a condition relating to the satisfaction of the licensing authority requiring him to consider the fact that the holder of the licence is prohibited by the Act or by any other law from acquiring or having in possession or carrying any arms or ammunition. Present is not a case were the licence has been cancelled because of the unsoundness of the mind of the Mukhiya or for any reason observing that such licensee was unfit for licence under the Act. Learned Counsel for the State vehemently argued that licence is issued in favour of a living person and as the licence was issued in favour of a Panchayat the before the District Magistrate was justified in revoking the licence. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed his strong reliance on a judgment of this Court in the matter of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited V/s. The State of Bihar, 1993 (1) PLJR 718 to contend that the words "person" used in sec. 3 would also include, a Company, which is a juristic person. On the said analogy it is contended that the petitioners Panchayat has a perpetual seal and succession. 3 would also include, a Company, which is a juristic person. On the said analogy it is contended that the petitioners Panchayat has a perpetual seal and succession. It can sue and be sued in its own name and under the Act is a juristic person, therefore it can certainly hold a licence. 11. After going through the said judgment I am of the considered opinion that the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner must be upheld. Once the law says that any person can hold a licence and this Court observes that the word person would also include a juristic person then it would be a fallacy to say that a licence can be issued only in name of a living person. 12. The other ground on which the licence has been cancelled is that at a sensitive place like Nalanda number of the arms licences have been issued, therefore, before issuing the licence a thorough investigation was required. I pose a question to myself that this investigation was to be made at the time of the grant of licence or at the time of the cancellation of the licence. While answering the question unfortunately I could not till my judicial discretion in favour of the State Government. Where a licence is to be issued it must be issued on the facts submitted before the authority at the time of the application for grant. The State Counsel has submitted that looking to the exigencies the licence was granted in the year 1973. If that was so then the licence was issued after making thorough investigation. After 30 years it would be fallacy of law to allow permission in favour of the State Government or the District Magistrate to make an enquiry and cancel the licence. Even otherwise issuance of number of the licences in favour of third parties would not meet requirement of an applicant, who opts for a licence. Would I be justified in observing or presuming that if somebody opens attack on a man then in absence of a licensed arms he must firstly rush to someone else, make him a request that third party should protect the life of the complainant because the first party does not hold a licence. It appears that the District Magistrate is living in a paradise created by his oneself. It appears that the District Magistrate is living in a paradise created by his oneself. He talks of the Utopian conditions less realising the law and order situation in the State of Bihar. I will be justified in observing that every day in the morning when I read the newspapers sometimes I feel that a newspaper should not be printed in black ink but should be printed in red ink to cause an alarm in the general public that but for the bloodshed and bad conditions of law and order in this State nothing else is to be found. Murder, Kidnapping, dacoity theft, arson, armed dacoity on public roads, breaking of the trains in fact have become industry in this State. The police officers are not in a position to defend their vehicles, property, arms and person. The time has come where every person has to protect his person and property regardless of the fact that State assures of Law and Order and timely assistance by police. If the State Government still feels that to save ones own life he must rush to another man because he holds arms licence then-less said better it is. 13. The order passed by the District Magistrate is absolutely absurd and illegal. It does not take into consideration the requirement of the law. The gun has been confiscated not because an application for release was not made within the time but has been confiscated because the licence has been cancelled. The licence in the opinion of this Court has been illegally cancelled. The order passed by the District Magistrate is quashed. He is hereby directed to return the gun to the present petitioner Mukhiya with a renewed licence within 10 days from today. He is forewarned that if he does not do so he may expose himself to the penalty and punishment which may be awarded to the person who disobeys the mandatory orders of this Court. The petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 2000.00 (Two thousand) to be paid by the State Government within ten days from today.