ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Supplementary affidavit filed today be accepted on record. ( 2 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 3. 12. 2004 by which the District Magistrate has issued show cause notice to the petitioner to why the arm license be not. cancelled and by the same order has suspended the arm license. ( 3 ) SHRI H. K. Mishra challenging the order contended thai the arm license cannot be suspended during pendency of any criminal case. He further contended that District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct for deposit of the arm till the license is not cancelled. He has placed reliance on the full judgment of this Court reported in 1984 AWC 145 Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. State of u. P and Ors. and the judgment of learned Single Judge reported in 2003 (46) ACC 248 Satish chandra v. State of U. P and Anr. ( 4 ) I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that license of the petitioner cannot be suspended during pendency of enquiry as laid down by the Full Bench in C. P Sahus case (supra ). The Full Bench of this Court in. C. P sahus case (supra) has held that if the District Magistrate has not come to a, definite conclusion that there are sufficient materials and grounds for suspension of (he arm license and he initiates enquiry to find out as to whether there arc sufficient material or not, he has no jurisdiction to suspend the arm license. However, in the same judgment Full Bench laid down in paragraph-18 that if the District Magistrate is satisfied that possession of arms by the licensee is going to endanger public peace and safety, it can straightaway and without holding any enquiry proceed to revoke/suspend the arms license. ( 5 ) THE second submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that after suspension of the license the arm cannot be directed to be deposited unless the arm license is cancelled. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court reported in Satish chandras case (supra ). In Satish Chandras case (Supra) learned single Judge proceeded on the assumption that the proposition is undisputed. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court reported in Satish chandras case (supra ). In Satish Chandras case (Supra) learned single Judge proceeded on the assumption that the proposition is undisputed. Following observation has been made by the learned Single Judge. "this proposition of law is undisputed that the Additional District Magistrate has no authority to get the fire arm deposited unless the license has been cancelled. " ( 6 ) THE attention of learned Single Judge was not invited to Section 21 (1) of the Arm Act 1959 which specifically provides that after suspension of arm license the possession of the licensee ceased to be lawful and the said arm is to, be deposited with the Officer In charge of the nearest police Station, Section 21 (1) of the Act is quoted below: "21. Deposit of arms, etc. , on possession ceasing to be lawful- (1) Any person having in his possession any arms or ammunition the possession whereof has, in consequence of the expiration of the duration of a licence or of the suspension or revocation of a licence or by the issue of a notification under Section 4 or by any reason whatever, ceased to be lawful, shall without unnecessary delay deposit the same either with the officer in charge of the nearest police station or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, with a licensed dealer or where such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in a unit armoury. " ( 7 ) IN view of the specific provision in the Act as contained in Section 21 (1) it. cannot be said that after suspension the District Magistrate cannot direct for deposit of the arm. The judgment of Satish Chandras Case (supra) proceeded on the assumption that preposition is undisputed which cannot help the petitioner in the present case. Another judgment relied by counsel for the petitioner is 2001 (43) ACC 114 Prabhu Dayal Yadav v. State of U. P and Ors. , In the said judgment learned Single Judge observed that " it remains undisputed that a District Magistrate has no authority to order for deposit of the gun unless the license has been cancelled. " ( 8 ) AS noted above, the said judgment proceeds on the assumption that the proposition is undisputed. , In the said judgment learned Single Judge observed that " it remains undisputed that a District Magistrate has no authority to order for deposit of the gun unless the license has been cancelled. " ( 8 ) AS noted above, the said judgment proceeds on the assumption that the proposition is undisputed. The attention of the Learned Single Judge was not invited to Section 21 of the Arms act 1959 which specifically provides that after suspension of the arm license the possession of licence ceased to be lawful and the arms has to be immediately deposited. The above case does not help the petitioner in any manner. Both the submission raised by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. ( 9 ) THE counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that petitioner shall submit his reply to the notice and the District Magistrate may be directed to consider the same take a final decision expedition sly. In view of the aforesaid submission, in case petitioner files a reply to the notice within one month from today, the District Magistrate may consider and take a final decision expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall deposit his arm with the registered arm dealer within one week. ( 10 ) THE writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. . .