JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Petitioner was granted licence for sale of fire-arm and ammunitions in Form-11, namely Rifle, Revolver, Pistol etc. by the State Government. Such licence of the petitioner was cancelled under an order dated 30.12.2010. 2. Not being satisfied with the order so passed, which according to the petitioner was ex parte, he filed a recall/review application. This review application was not being considered, he approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 34463 of 2011 with a prayer that the Secretary (Home) may be directed to decide his application dated 1.5.2011 with reference to the cancellation of his licence granted in Form-11. The writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge vide order dated 8.9.2011 and it has been recorded that the counsel for the petitioner hopelessly failed to establish as to whether the authority had any competence to entertain the application after final order having been passed. The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed. 3. The petitioner by means of this second petition now seeks quashing of the order which was passed on 30.12.2010, whereby his licence in Form-11 was cancelled. 4. In the opinion of the Court this second writ petition is barred by principle enshrined under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. which provides that if a relief was available to the petitioner at the time of filing of his earlier proceedings and if such relief is not prayed for, it is to be deemed that the relief has been waived. From the records of the present writ petition it is clear that the petitioner had not prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.12.2010 in his earlier Writ Petition No. 34463 of 2011, when such relief was very much available to the petitioner. 5. Therefore, in view of Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C., this subsequent writ petition, for the relief which was earlier available to the petitioner but had not been prayed for, would not be maintainable. However, in the interest of substantial justice this Court permitted the petitioner to address the Court on the merits of the order dated 30.12.2010 also. 6. From the order impugned it is apparently clear that there are serious allegation against the petitioner in respect of sale of ammunitions in excess of the quantity prescribed to the firearm licence holders in clear defiance of the Government Order issued on the subject. 6. From the order impugned it is apparently clear that there are serious allegation against the petitioner in respect of sale of ammunitions in excess of the quantity prescribed to the firearm licence holders in clear defiance of the Government Order issued on the subject. It has been recorded that the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 9.9.2010. On 23.9.2010 he was granted 15 days time to submit his reply. The petitioner by an application informed that the relevant records are lying ceased in his fire-arm shop, appropriate order may be issued for the seals being removed and documents being supplied. The request of the petitioner was accepted by the State Government and vide order dated 11th November, 2010 the District Magistrate was directed to make available photo-stat copies of the documents which were lying in the sealed shop. On 21st November, 2010 the district authorities in presence of two independent witnesses made available photo-stat copies of the documents to the petitioner. Even then the petitioner did not submit reply and by means of letter dated 26.11.2010 asked for photo-stat copy of the Government Order dated 13.12.1985. This Government Order was also made available to him by the District Magistrate on 9.12.2010. Even thereafter no reply was received from the petitioner and therefore the State Government proceeded to pass the order impugned. 7. According to the petitioner a reply had been sent by speed post on 27.12.2010 (reference para-11 of the writ petition) and that it was received in the secretariat on 30.12.2010. 8. It is not known as to whether reply was received prior to the passing of the order on 30.12.2010 or subsequent thereto. However, that aspect of the matter need not be gone into by this Court, inasmuch as application for reconsideration of the order dated 30.12.2010 has been dismissed by this Court on the ground that recall is not maintainable and even otherwise on merits of the charges there is hardly any explanation worth merit. 9. From the order impugned this Court finds that specific findings of fact have been recorded qua the petitioner having violated the Government Order, restricting the quantity of sale of ammunitions to a particular category of licence holders. 9. From the order impugned this Court finds that specific findings of fact have been recorded qua the petitioner having violated the Government Order, restricting the quantity of sale of ammunitions to a particular category of licence holders. Specific names of the licence holder, to whom ammunition has been supplied contrary to the conditions imposed by the Government Order, binding upon the petitioner, have been noticed under the order impugned. 10. Counsel for the petitioner, except for submitting that these licences had been granted from places outside the State of U.P., could not refer to any relevant Government Order or statutory provision wherein in respect of such licence holders the petitioner could violate the directions issued by the State Government in the matter of issuance of ammunitions. In the totality of the circumstances on record this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the order. Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. ——————