JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders Annex.9 dated 30.10.2007 and Annex.11 dated 25.01.2008 passed by District Magistrate, Hanumangarh and the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner respectively. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the material on record. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner's father Shri Keshara Ram held the two guns i.e. .12 bore gun and one M.L. Gun under a valid licence, however, after death of petitioner's father, .12 bore gun went in the share of petitioner's brother who got the licence for .12 bore gun and got the .12 bore gun endorsed on his licence and one ML Gun came in the share of the petitioner and since the petitioner had a licence for M.L. Gun the said gun has been endorsed on the licence of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 13 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'the Arms Act' hereinafter) before the Licensing Authority for converting bore of Muzzle Loading gun to that of .12 bore gun. By order dated 22.3.1990 the competent Licensing Authority granted the change of bore from Muzzle loading to .12 bore in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner sold the muzzle loading gun after having obtained permission from the concerned District Magistrate and purchased .12 bore gun in the year 1990 and the same came to be endorsed on the licence issued in favour of the petitioner. Selling of muzzle loading gun and purchasing of .12 bore gun was with the permission of the concerned District Magistrate and therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner revoking the arms licence by the order dated 30.10.2007 by respondent District Magistrate, Hanumangarh as also the order passed by the appellate authority dated 25.1.2008 are bad in law. 4. Learned Additional Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the orders impugned. 5. 4. Learned Additional Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the orders impugned. 5. From the perusal of the material on record, it appears that since the petitioner was granted licence to hold the M.L. Gun, he got the M.L. Gun inherited and got the same endorsed on the licence which was granted by the competent authority and thereafter applied for change of bore in the prescribed proforma and after a thorough verification, the authority concerned changed the bore way back in the year 1990. There being no allegation that allowing the petitioner to keep the arms i.e. .12 bore gun on a licence issued way back in the year 1990 would in any manner endanger public safety or peace. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, the authorities below fell in error in passing the orders impugned. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned Annex.9 dated 30.10.2007 and Annex.11 dated 25.01.2008 passed by District Magistrate, Hanumangarh and the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner respectively are set aside and quashed. The licence of .12 bore gun issued in favour of the petitioner is restored. If the petitioner has deposited the arm in pursuance of the order cancelling licence, the same may be restored to him. Stay petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******