JUDGEMENT 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order, as contained in Memo dated 2.1.2008 (Annexure-9) whereby arms licence granted to the petitioner has been revoked. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash communication dated 2.6.2008 (Annexure-12) whereby petitioner has been informed that his application to rescind the order revoking the licence has been rejected. 2. Short facts, giving rise to the present application, are that the petitioner held arms Licence no. 1239 of 2007. While granting arms licence the last date fixed for purchase of arms was 20.12.2007. Petitioner got the licence on 2.11.2007 and deposited the Bank draft for purchase of the arms with Ordinance Factory, Kanpur which fixed 12.8.2008 as the date of its delivery. Petitioner filed application for extending the period for purchase of the arms but the District Magistrate by impugned communication dated 2.1.2008 revoked the licence on the ground that petitioner had not purchased the arms within the time granted. Petitioner brought the matter before the Divisional Commissioner who, by order as contained in its letter dated 14.2.2008 directed the District Magistrate to consider the prayer of the petitioner for extending the time to purchase the arms. While doing so it observed that no fault can be found out in the conduct of the petitioner in not purchasing the arms by 20.12.2007. In the light of the order of the Commissioner, the District Magistrate considered the matter and observing that it had no power to review the order rejected the petitioners prayer by order dated 18.5.2008. This was communicated to the petitioner by letter as contained in Memo dated 2.6.2008. 3. Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the District Magistrate erred in holding that the issue involved relates to review of the order. He points put that in view of the direction of the Commissioner, the District Magistrate was obliged to consider the matter on merit in regard to the prayer of the petitioner for extension of time to purchase arms. 4. I find substance in the submission of Mr. Kejriwal. When the Commissioner directed the District Magistrate to consider the prayer of the petitioner, it was obliged to consider his case on merit. He, having not done so his order is vitiated on this account alone. 5. 4. I find substance in the submission of Mr. Kejriwal. When the Commissioner directed the District Magistrate to consider the prayer of the petitioner, it was obliged to consider his case on merit. He, having not done so his order is vitiated on this account alone. 5. Accordingly the order of the District Magistrate as contained in Memo dated 2.1.2008 (Annexure-9) order dated 18.5.2008 and the communication dated 2.6.2008 (Annexure-12) are quashed and the matter is remitted back to respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate, Madhubani to reconsider the matter in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observation of the Commissioner. 6. Application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.