IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6542 of 2005 Suresh Singh , Son of Late Anesh Singh, resident of village Baluahi, P.s. Bikramganj, District Rohtas at Sasaram ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram …. Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. Din Bandhu Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajeev Lochan, AC to GA 9 3 20.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State. Petitioner seeks quashing of dated 22.6.99/28.6.99 passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas in Arms Case No. 35 of 1996 as well as appellate order dated 28.9.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Patna Division in Case No. 103/1999 as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 respectively. Learned counsel submits that his license has been cancelled only on the ground of suspicion that he has not utilised the same while the dacoits had attacked the house of co-villager Vijay Singh. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court towards paragraph 3 of the appellate order. It is claimed that 2 petitioner had fired from his rifle when the dacoity was being committed and upon that dacoits had escaped. It is also urged that since there is old enmity between him and the Mukiya and Vijay Singh, the such sanha has been lodged by the police at their instance. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner appending a judgment of acquittal passed in the aforesaid case of dacoity with regard to the accused persons and a certificate granted by the Block Development Officer regarding the conduct of the petitioner. It is also stated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner’s antecedent is clean. However, on the basis of suspicion raised by the police on the basis of statement of the Mukhia and Vijay Singh allegedly recorded in the case regarding the dacoity, the authorities have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was also in league of the accused persons. However, all the accused persons have now been acquitted of the charges whereas the petitioner’s license still remain cancelled even though he was 3 not made accused in the aforesaid case even on the ground of suspicion. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Learned counsel submitted that during the course of investigation of the aforesaid regarding Sanha no. 577 dated 23.4.1996, it had transpired to the Officer In-charge that the petitioner conduct was suspicious. However, nothing has been brought on record to show that either the petitioner is having any criminal antecedent or what was the basis of such suspicion. In above view of the matter, in my opinion the orders impugned cannot be sustained in law as they have been passed merely on the basis of suspicion. As a result, both the order dated 22.6.99/28.6.99 passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas in Arms Case No. 35 of 1996 as well as appellate order dated 28.9.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Patna Division in Case No. 103/1999 as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 respectively are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the 4 Collector, Rohtas to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass a reasoned order after considering the materials available on record and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of a certified copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)