JUDGMENT 1. - By filing the instant appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, the appellant has challenged legality of order dated September 20, 2006 rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6687/2006 by which the prayers made by the appellant, (1) to set aside the order dated June 1, 2006 revoking the licence granted to him under the provisions of the Arms Act, 19, (2) the order dated June 22, 2006 asking him to deposit the weapon possessed by him, and (3) directing the respondents to return 32 Bore Revolver 80450 deposited by him with Police Station, Navalgarh, are rejected. 2. The appellant was holding a licence under the Arms Act, 1959 since 1985 for Rajasthan region. He wanted the licence to be operative through the country. Therefore, he made necessary application. By letter dated November 1, 2000, the Superintendent of Police of the area concerned recommended grant of licence as prayed for by the appellant. On receipt of the letter dated November 1, 2000, the District Magistrate by letter dated August 4, 2002 asked the Superintendent of Police to enquire into the antecedents of the appellant. On March 22, 2004, the District Magistrate wrote a letter asking the appellant as to state the reasons why he wanted all India licence. While verifying antecedents, it was. noticed that the appellant was involved in commission of offences for which three different FIRs were lodged. Therefore, on December 27, 2005 a notice was issued to the appellant calling upon him to show cause as to why the licence should not be revoked. On receipt of the notice, the appellant filed his reply. Meanwhile, the Superintendent of Police sent a report on April 27, 2005 recommending revocation of licence. The respondent No. 3 revoked the licence by an order dated June, 22, 2006. Thereupon he invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and claimed reliefs to which reference is made earlier. The learned Single Judge has rejected the petition by order dated September 20, 2006 which has given rise to the instant appeal. 3. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and in great detail. This Court has also considered the. documents forming part of the original petition. 4. The learned Single Judge has rejected the petition by order dated September 20, 2006 which has given rise to the instant appeal. 3. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and in great detail. This Court has also considered the. documents forming part of the original petition. 4. The plea that there is no material indicating that there was likelihood of misuse of the weapon regarding which licence was granted by the authority to the appellant, and, therefore, the licence could not have been revoked, has no substance. On the basis of materials produced before him, the District Magistrate has come to the conclusion that for the security of the public peace and for public safety, it is necessary to revoke the licence granted to the appellant. The satisfaction is in terms of Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act which cannot be termed as arbitrary. Further, before satisfying himself in terms of Section 17(3)(b), the report of Superintendent of Police was placed before him. The report of the Superintendent of Police indicated that the appellant was involved in commission of different offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 341, 323, 427 of Indian Penal Code and Section 10 as well as Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983 for which FIR Nos. 280/05, 285/05 and 159/06 are registered against the appellant with Nawalgarh Police Station. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in not entertaining the petition. 5. It is well settled that the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit in appeal to examine the question whether the material produced before the competent authority was sufficient to enable the authority to reach the satisfaction as required under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm opinion that on the basis of materials produced before him, the District Magistrate was justified in concluding that it was necessary in the interest of public safety and public security to revoke the licence granted to the appellant. Therefore, the plea raised at the Bar by the learned counsel for the appellant would not be accepted. 6. Therefore, the plea raised at the Bar by the learned counsel for the appellant would not be accepted. 6. The contention that the petitioner was not given opportunity of personal hearing, and therefore the orders impugned in the petition should have been set aside by the learned Single Judge is devoid of merits. The principles of natural justice do not require that person against whom adverse order is passed must be heard in person, unless such requirement is provided by the statute. The facts of the case reveal that before revoking the licence granted to the appellant, he was served with a notice calling upon him to show cause as to why licence granted to him should not be revoked. On the receipt of notice, the appellant had filed a detailed reply for consideration of the competent authority. The said reply is to be found on page 38 of the compilation of the appeal. Moreover, the impugned order indicates that before passing the order, the competent authority has recorded reasons. Thus, non-hearing the petitioner personally would not invalidate the order by which his licence was revoked. 7. The above discussion makes it clear that there is no substance in the appeal, and, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Notice issued is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******