Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.8.1994 passed by District Magistrate, Hardoi cancelling firearm licence of petitioner and the appellate order dated 8.5.1995 passed by Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow rejecting petitioner's appeal. 2. It is contended that show cause notice was issued to petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why firearm licence be not suspended which was replied by him and thereafter impugned order of cancellation has been passed though there was no show cause notice issued to petitioner for cancellation of firearm licence of petitioner. It is further submitted that the District Magistrate has taken into consideration certain circumstances which were not the part of show cause notice namely petitioner's age etc. and even otherwise the impugned order has been passed on sheer conjectures and surmises i.e. possibility of misuse of firearm licence without recording any satisfaction of District Magistrate in respect to factors under Section 17 (3) of Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1959") which may justify cancellation of firearm licence. 3. Writ petition is pending for the last almost 17 years and the respondents have chosen not to file any counter affidavit till date. It is really unfortunate that it is the State authorities who by their sheer inaction for decades together allow the cases to remain pending and create obstruction in expeditious disposal of cases. 4. Even otherwise from the perusal of impugned orders, as discussed above, I do not find that the same can sustain inasmuch admittedly the show cause notice was given only for the purpose of suspension while impugned order has been passed cancelling firearm licence. Moreover, the District Magistrate has also referred to certain facts and circumstances which were not part of show cause notice which have been relied for justifying cancellation of firearm licence of petitioner. 5. Similarly, even the Appellate Court has failed to consider all these aspects of the matter and has further observed that petitioner has criminal aptitude though no such satisfaction in respect to conduct of petitioner has been recorded by District Magistrate. In my view, therefore, both the orders impugned in this writ petition cannot sustain. 6. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 25.8.1994 and 8.5.1995 (Annexures 2 and 1 to writ petition) are hereby quashed. 7. Petitioner shall also be entitled to cost which I quantify to Rs. 25,000/-. 8. In my view, therefore, both the orders impugned in this writ petition cannot sustain. 6. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 25.8.1994 and 8.5.1995 (Annexures 2 and 1 to writ petition) are hereby quashed. 7. Petitioner shall also be entitled to cost which I quantify to Rs. 25,000/-. 8. However, this order shall not preclude the respondents from passing fresh order against the petitioner in accordance with law. _____________