IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1905 of 2009 MANIK CHAND . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3. 11.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner held an Arms Licence No. 6 of 1987 in Form-XI and Form-XII. The former was for repair of fire arms and the latter was for sale. On 26.12.1994 he applied for increase in the capacity of Form-XII licence to enable him to increase his stock. That came to be allowed by an order dated12.12.1995 and around which revolves the present controversy. On 25.9.2002, he was served a show cause notice that the new Licence No. 3 of 1995 issued in lieu of Licence No. 6 of 1987 bore interpolations in Form XII with regard to permissible number of fire arms, and why his licence be not cancelled for that reason. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause denying any interpolation. He questioned the show cause in C.W.J.C. No. 12686 of 2003 which was disposed off with directions to the respondents for final decision on the cause shown by the petitioner. Then followed an order on 22.4.2004 that his involvement in the interpolation was implicit since he was the sole beneficiary cancelling his licence No. 3 2 of 1995 in Form-XII arising out of Licence No. 6 of 1987. Subsequently, on 7.5.2004, another show cause notice has been issued to him as to why his licence in Form-XI be not suspended for that very reason from permitting him to deal with repairs of fire arms. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 22.4.2004, was based on surmises and conjectures to conclude that because the petitioner was the ultimate beneficiary of the additional permission allegedly granted by order dated 12.12.1995, he was clearly answerable for the interpolation. It is submitted that the show cause notice or the final order do not mention any grounds for the suspected interpolation and the materials on which the authorities were satisfied of its having been so done. Reliance is placed on certain orders of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6217 of 1999 and others writ applications in similar circumstances. Counsel for the State from the counter affidavit simply reiterates what is mentioned in the show cause notice and the final order of cancellation. There is a presumption in law that all Government Acts are done in normal course and in accordance with law. Therefore, a presumption of 3 correctness under Section 114( e )of the Evidence Act attaches to the Government order dated 12.12.1995. But the presumption is rebutable. In the facts, the onus lies on the Government authorities who question the authenticity of the order dated 12.12.1995. The show cause notice dated 25.9.2002 is completely vague and silent on the grounds, reasons and materials why the authorities were of the opinion that there was insertion and interpolation in the sanction order. Unless these were first specified, there was no occasion for the petitioner to file a proper reply. The order dated 22.4.2002, in that background arrives at a finding that since the petitioner was a beneficiary of the interpolation he is answerable. The language used in Paragraph-4 was that he was a part of the conspiracy. If it was a conspiracy in what manner the conspiracy performed. Who were the co-conspirator, what action has been taken against them was all required to be dealt with in the order. The respondents could have even placed relevant materials in this regard in the counter affidavit. They have again chosen not to do so. They must bear the consequences of the same. A bald statement has been made, that action has been taken for lodging an F.I.R. Counsel for the State submits that he has instruction 4 to state that departmental proceedings were started against someone who has been deceased. But he submits that he has received no instruction with regard to any F.I.R. The order dated 22.4.2004 is therefore clearly non-sustainable in law and it is accordingly set aside. The subsequent show cause dated 7.5.2004 with regard to Form No. XI is only a sequel to the order dated 22.4.2004 and cannot be seen divorced from the same. The petitioner has shown cause. Let the authorities consider the matter in its entirety in light of the present discussion and pass final appropriate orders in accordance with law within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)