Judgment 1. The petitioners has filed this writ application against the order of cancellation of his arms licence for a non-prohibited bore 0.32 pistol, as contained in Annexure4, and affirmed by the Divisional Commis- sioner, Tirhut by order date 8.2.2007 (Annexure-5). A counter affidavit has been filed justifying the action in question. 2. Petitioner submits that he was validly granted arms licence for the pistol in question. He is a prominent businessman. Out of malice and without any factual foundation, police recommended to the District Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority for cancellation of petitioners arms licence. Annexure-C to the counter affidavit is Memo No. 890 dated 3.9.2006 of the Subdivisional Police Officer, Mannar to the Superintendent of Police, Hajipur. This gives out clearly the sequence of events which must be noticed. 3. It appears on 4.8.2006, pursuant to wireless message issued from the office of Superintendent of Police, Hajipur informing that information had been received that petitioner was sympathising with Maoist and was giving his pistol to them for use, verification should be made. Pursuant thereto, the Sub-divisional Police Officer by his Memo No. 775 dated 10.8.2006, directed the Officer-in-charge, Mannar to make enquiry and report which was submitted by the said Officer-in-charge by his Memo No. 1321/06 dated 31.8.2006 (Copy whereof has not been filed). It appears that the Officer-in-charge reported that he inspected the firearm with the petitioner. Petitioner could not give satisfactory explanation for ten missing cartridges. As such, he recommended for cancellation of petitioners licence of firearm, pistol. On basis of the aforesaid, the present proceedings were initiated by issuance of notice dated 12.10.2006 (Annexure-2). The three grounds mentioned therein are (i) that the petitioner gave his licensed arm to Maovadi extremist, (ii) he was unable to account for ten cartridges and (iii) this character was suspicious. No basis was disclosed nor any material disclosed with regard to the alleged connection with extremist or to show that the character was doubtful. Petitioner filed his show cause clearly stating that he had used ten cartridges at his residence while cleaning and testing his pistol from time to time and had produced empty shells before the Officer-in-charge who refused to take note thereof. With regard to others, he clearly stated that he is not associated nor does he know any Maoist extremist and is a businessman and for his own safety he has taken the arms licence. With regard to others, he clearly stated that he is not associated nor does he know any Maoist extremist and is a businessman and for his own safety he has taken the arms licence. He does not misuse the licence. He specifically stated that there is no case whatsoever registered against him nor any matter pending nor any such investigation nor is there any material to justify the allegations aforesaid with relation to the character being suspicious or his connection with the Maoist extremist. It may be mentioned here that from Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, it is apparent that the Officer-in-charge, Mahnar, when he sent his report, he does not confirm the allegation on petitioner being a Maoist extremist sympathiser or lending his firearm to them. The District Magistratecum-Collector, who is the licensing authority, then passes a mechanical order holding that as the petitioner was unable to account for ten cartridges, he had violated Sec. 17(3)(a) of the Arms Act. With regard to the other allegations, he merely notes that there are reports (not brought on record) showing his connection with Maoist extremist. There is no consideration in the said order as to the explanation given by the petitioner with regard to usage of firearm and consumption of ten cartridges therein. The Collector has virtually reproduced the recommendation without any allegation or application of his independent mind. He has not brought on record any material to even bring about a semblance of truthfulness of the allegation that petitioner was in any way connected with Maoist extemist. No paper no report nor any first information report has been brought on record. Against the said cancellation, petitioner filed statutory appeal which has been disposed of in most casual manner by a two lines order saying that there was nothing justifying interference by the appellate Court. 4. Having considered the matter, I find that the order cancelling arms licence cannot be supported either in law or in fact. So far as the allegation of having doubtful character of connection with Maoist extremist is concerned, except figment of imagination, there is no material to justify the same. Such wild allegations can be made by any one at any time. Moreover, when this matter was ultimately entrusted to the Officer-in-charge, Mahnar Police Station, he does not seem to have corroborated the same. Such wild allegations can be made by any one at any time. Moreover, when this matter was ultimately entrusted to the Officer-in-charge, Mahnar Police Station, he does not seem to have corroborated the same. In my view, such unsubstantiated allegations cannot form ground for cancelling arms licence. Coming to the question of ten cartridges having been used but not satisfactory explanation having been given, the show cause sufficiently gives an explanation which, on the face of it, appears to be bona fide explanation, the Collector does no even consider the said explanation much less rejects it on any ground. The Commissioner does not even bother to refer to it. Such a conduct in a quasi judicial proceedings cannot be countenanced by the Court. A reasonable explanation offered must be reasonably accepted unless there are cogent materials to reject the same. There being no material to reject the same, I find that in totally, the petitioner had not violated any terms and conditions of the licence issued to him. 5. The impugned orders of the Collector and the Commissioner are hereby quashed. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed.