ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 10-12-2012 passed by respondent 1 at Annexure-A and the order dated 18-2-2011 passed by respondent 2 at Annexure-G to the petition. 2. The petitioner had made an application seeking Arms Licence and he had been granted such licence on 29-3-2010. On the allegations that the petitioner had involved himself in criminal cases in Cri. Nos. 319, 377 and 222 of 2010, the licence has been revoked by order dated 18-2-2011 at Annexure-G. The petitioner had preferred an appeal as contemplated under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Appellate Authority while considering the appeal, as per the ordered dated 10-12-2012 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court. 3. The Appellate Authority as well as respondent 2 have no doubt taken note of the cases registered in Cri. Nos. 319 and 377 of 2010 as also the case in Cri. No. 222 of 2010. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the reason assigned by respondent 2 as well as respondent 1 is not justified since, the revocation of the licence had been made as if the petitioner had involved in the said cases prior to the grant of licence. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that subsequent to issue of licence, the petitioner had published certain article in the newspaper on 15-4-2010 which was against the Police Authorities. It is therefore contended that in order to victimise the petitioner with regard to the article published in the newspaper, the order dated 18-2-2011 is made revoking the licence. 5. In that light of the contention put forth, a perusal of the order passed by respondent 2 and the order passed by respondent 1 dated 10-12-2012 though has referred to the crime numbers wherein the criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner, the date on which the said cases have been registered against the petitioner has not been referred. The said dates would be relevant to arrive at conclusion as to whether the petition had involved himself in the criminal cases even before the licence was granted in his favour. It is only if so the reason assigned in the order would be substantiated. 6. The said dates would be relevant to arrive at conclusion as to whether the petition had involved himself in the criminal cases even before the licence was granted in his favour. It is only if so the reason assigned in the order would be substantiated. 6. However, on the other hand, if in fact, the criminal cases were registered subsequent to issue of licence, even then, though the respondents would be entitled to revoke the licence, the respondents are also required to consider as to whether the licence could be kept under suspension until the criminal cases are decided by the Court before which it is pending and if exonerated whether the licence, could be restored to the name of the petitioner. The said consideration ought to have been made by the Appellate Authority while taking note of the order passed by respondent 2. Hence, at this juncture, 1 see no reasons to interfere with the order dated 18-2-2011 passed by respondent 2. However, since respondent 1 has not taken note of this aspect of the matter and has upheld the order passed by respondent 2, the order impugned dated 10-12-2012 is set aside so as to enable respondent 1 to re-examine the matter on this aspect. 7. The appeal of the petitioner in No. ARM(A)VW. 1/2011-12 is therefore restored to the file of respondent 1 who shall examine this aspect of the matter and thereafter arrive at a conclusion as to whether the licence of the petitioner is required to be kept under suspension or whether it is to be revoked and in that light, whether the order passed by respondent 2 is justified or not. Keeping open all the contentions, the petition stands disposed of.