IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8510 of 2005 LALAN SINGH, S/O RAM BILASH SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-JAISHREE, P.S. KARAKAT, DISTRICT-ROHTAS AT SASARAM. -PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, ROHTAS 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. -RESPONDENTS ----- FOR THE PETITIONER : M/s. NARENDRA KUMAR & VINOD KUMAR SETH FOR THE STATE : Mr. S.C. VERMA, J.C. to S.C.9 2 20.01.2009 Prayer of the petitioner in this application is for quashing the order dated 21.8.1999, ( Annexure-2) passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas in Arms Case no.23 of 1998 whereby it has cancelled the licence of the petitioner. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 11.12.2000 (Annenxure-3) passed by the Commissioner, Patna Division, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. In view of the order which I propose to pass in this application, it is inexpedient to give any detail facts of this case. Suffice it to say that petitioner possessed arms Lincence no.4 of 1994. District Magistrate by order dated 2 21.8.1999 cancelled the licence and against the aforesaid order petitioner preferred appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner, by order dated 11.12.2000, dismissed the appeal. His order reads as follows: “Heard the learned lawyer for the appellant applicant. There is nothing in his petition or argument to cast any as per doubt or the manner of the licencing authority has made up in his mind. There is no prima facie case for appeal. Not admitted. Record closed.” Despite opportunity, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Narendra Kumar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that various pleas were raised before the Commissioner but without considering any one of them he had dismissed the appeal by a cryptic order. J.C. to S.C. 9 appears on behalf of the State. From the order of the Commissioner, it is evident that he had passed the order without any application of mind. This itself vitiates his order. The matter is remitted back to him for reconsideration in accordance with law. In the result, the writ application is partly allowed, the impugned order of the Commissioner 3 (Annenxure-3) is quashed and the matter is remitted back to him for reconsideration in accordance with law. (C.K. Prasad, ACJ.) AAhmad