JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 420(AP)/2021, Mr. TT Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 27(AP)/2022, WP(C) No. 28(AP)/2022, WP(C) No. 29(AP)/2022, WP(C) No. 30(AP)/2022, WP(C) No. 31(AP)/2022, WP(C) No. 32(AP)/2022, WP(C) No. 33(AP)/2022, WP(C) No. 34(AP)/2022, WP(C) No. 35(AP)/2022, WP(C) No. 36(AP)/2022, WP(C) No. 37(AP)/2022, WP(C) No. 38(AP)/2022, WP(C) No. 39(AP)/2022, Mr. N Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 40(AP)/2022, WP(C) No. 45(AP)/2022, Mr. B. Kamdak, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 44(AP)/2022 and Mr. D Tamyak, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 148(AP)/2022as well as Mr. RH Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 2. For convenience, we take note of the facts involved in WP(C) No.27(AP)/2022 on the premises that the facts involved in the other writ petitions are also on similar line. 3. All the petitioners herein were issued arms licenses under Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short Act of 1959) and all the licenses were issued during the period or subsequent to the year 2017. It is stated by the respondents that the Principal Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the Home Department had issued a communication dated 02.09.2016 addressed to all the Deputy Commissioners, Additional Deputy Commissioners, Sub Divisional Officers in the State of Arunachal Pradesh providing that the Government had decided to continue with an earlier order dated 23.08.2013 to impose a blanket ban on issuing of fresh arms licenses in the State of Arunachal Pradesh till the licenses already issued by various authorities are completely uploaded in the NDAL and the problem arising out of permitting multiple arms licenses, multiple fire arms, generation of UIN for licenses are completed in all respect. 4. The reason for the State Government to arrive at such decision that there is a requirement to upload on the NDAL and also to look into the problems arising out of permitting multiple arms licenses, multiple fire arms, generation of UIN for licenses would have to be considered to be necessary in the public interest. But in order to do so, the decision to impose a blanket ban on issuing of fresh licenses in the State of Arunachal Pradesh till such exercise is carried out, appears to be venturing into an incorrect solution for a correct reason. 5. But in order to do so, the decision to impose a blanket ban on issuing of fresh licenses in the State of Arunachal Pradesh till such exercise is carried out, appears to be venturing into an incorrect solution for a correct reason. 5. We further take note that the decision of the State Government is of 23.08.2013 and the communication thereof was made on 02.09.2016 and the decision was given effect sometime in the year 2017 and onwards. In other words, if the decision is of 23.08.2013, many such licenses may have been issued up to the year 2017 although there was a decision not to issue any fresh arms licenses. But for some reason, the authorities are of the view that the licenses that were granted on or after the year 2017 are to be cancelled for the reason that such licenses were issued after there was a decision by the State Government to have a blanket ban on issuing of fresh arms licenses. 6. Having taken note of it, we notice that in respect of one such licensee, the District Magistrate of East Siang district had issued a notice dated 12.02.2021 informing that as the license was issued during the blanket ban period, therefore, it cannot be further renewed inasmuch as the license was illegally procured in contravention of Government order dated 02.09.2016, which had already been referred hereinabove. 7. Granting of arms license are governed by the Act of 1959 read with Arms Rules 2016 (in short Rules of 2016) and the procedure thereof, including that of issuing a license, renewing a license or cancelling a license are provided therein. The decision of the State Government contained in the communication dated 02.09.2016 appears to be more of an administrative decision rather than a decision under the Act of 1959 or the Rules of 2016 to impose a blanket ban on issuing further arms licenses till such administrative requirements of the Government regarding uploading of information and collecting of information regarding multiple issuance of licenses are completed. 8. The Act of 1959 provides for a legal right to the citizens to have their request for an arms license to be considered upon the satisfaction of certain circumstances and the requirements that may flow from such circumstance. 8. The Act of 1959 provides for a legal right to the citizens to have their request for an arms license to be considered upon the satisfaction of certain circumstances and the requirements that may flow from such circumstance. If there is a blanket ban of issuing any fresh license and there is a cancellation or non renewal of the licenses issued after the purported blanket ban, we are of the view that the legal right of the citizens to be considered for obtaining an arms license by following the due procedure of law under the Act of 1959 and the Rules of 2016 would be infringed. 9. No doubt the exercise to be undertaken by the State Government would have to be appreciated as they intend to root out arms licenses that may have been issued to undeserving people or through methods which would be in conflict with the provisions of the Act of 1959 or the Rules of 2016, but at the same time, in order to carry forward such requirements in the public interest, it also cannot be a case that wherever there is a deserving case to have an arms license depending on the given facts and circumstance of the individual case, such legal right be denied to the citizen merely because there is a necessity to carry out an exercise to verify or re-verify the licenses that have already been issued. Further, by taking the decision to impose a blanket ban on all future issuance of license for the reason that the authorities had found that many undeserving persons have licenses issued in their name and on many such occasions the licenses were not issued by following the prescribed procedure of law, such decision would have to be construed to be arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory inasmuch as, by such decision the undeserving persons or the persons who have procured the license through illegal means would be allowed to retain their licenses but all such future applicants who may be deserving for such license and the license would have been issued by following the prescribed procedure would be denied by the blanket ban. 10. 10. We also take note of another communication dated 18.10.2019 from the Commissioner to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the Home Department addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang district that immediate action be taken for revoking of 109 numbers of arms licenses illegally issued by Sri Tamiyo Tatak, the then Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat, East Siang District during the period 2017-18, which was in violation of the Government order on a blanket ban on issuing of fresh arms licenses. 11. Again, the reason contained in the communication dated 18.10.2019 would have to be construed to be not inconsonance with the provisions of the Act of 1959 as well as the Rules of 2016.As because certain administrative decision of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to have a blanket ban was not followed by the Deputy Commissioner concerned and he had granted the licenses in spite of there being such ban, as already held, although the decision of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to review the gun licenses issued may be a good reason and also in the public interest, but again, it cannot be accepted that merely because one Deputy Commissioner had issued the arms licenses during the currency of the decision to impose a blanket ban, all such licenses would be illegal in law. 12. We also take note that the communication dated 02.09.2016 for imposing blanket ban was for the reason of a requirement to upload the information on the NDAL and also to review as to whether multiple arms licenses had been issued. In the meantime, almost six years have gone by and even if at that relevant point of time it may have been a good reason, but over the passage of time, the same reason cannot be sustained any longer or otherwise we have to infer that issuance of arms licenses had been stopped in the State of Arunachal Pradesh for an indefinite period of time which again as already observed will be contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1959. 13. 13. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met on a direction being issued to the Commissioner to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the Home Department, if necessary, to verify from the records available with the department as regards issuance of arms licenses and upon verification of the records, if it is revealed that in any individual case, the arms licenses were issued either illegally or to an undeserving people or in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act of 1959 or the Rules of 2016, individual notices may be issued to such persons and appropriate action be taken by the authorized authority under the Act of 1959 and the Rules of 2016 by scrupulously following the procedure prescribed in the Act of 1959 and the Rules 2016, more particularly Section 17 of the Act of 1959. 14. In view of the conclusion arrived hereinabove, the arms licenses that were already issued to the petitioners shall be restored back to them immediately. But again, if the authorities are of the view that anyone of them is required to be subjected to the verification process or any further action as indicated above is required to be taken, liberty will remain with the respondent authorities to proceed against such persons as per law as indicated. 15. In view of what has been provided that the arms licenses will be returned back to the individual licensees, all the individual notices or cancellation orders that may have been issued in respect all the petitioners stand interfered and set aside. It is however added that the petitioners to also not abuse the arms licenses that are restored to them and behave in the manner as required under the law and if any further violation is noticed, the appropriate authority may take action in the manner provided under the law. The writ petitions are allowed of as indicated above.