JUDGMENT :

(A.S. Gadkari , J.)

1. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the Order dated 20th July, 2011 passed by the Minister for State (Home), Government of Maharashtra i.e. the Appellate Authority, in Appeal No. ALS-0610/A-125/Pol-9 dismissing the said Appeal and confirming the Order dated 1st January, 2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Head Quarter-1, Mumbai cancelling his arms licence issued by the said authority.

2. Heard Mr. Amit Ghag, learned counsel for Petitioner and Mrs. S. D. Shinde, learned APP for Respondent-State. Perused entire record produced before us.

3. Petitioner was issued an arms licence bearing No. BO/17/DDec/ 92 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Head Quarter-1 i.e. the Competent Authority from the Mumbai Police Commissionerate and in pursuance thereto Petitioner purchased one .32 Bore Pistol and one .12 Bore DBBL Gun.

During the period from the year 1997 till 2009, eight criminal cases came to be registered against the Petitioner. The Competent Authority therefore issued a notice dated 6th October, 2009 under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959. Petitioner filed his reply dated 26th October, 2009 to the said notice. The Competent Authority after hearing the Petitioner and considering his reply, by its Order dated 1st January, 2010 cancelled the arms licence granted to Petitioner with immediate effect and directed him to deposit it in it’s office.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order dated 1st January, 2010, petitioner preferred Appeal No. ALS-0610/A-125/Pol-9 under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Appellate Authority. As noted earlier, the Appellate Authority by its impugned Order dated 20th February, 2011 dismissed the said Appeal.

In the present Petition Rule has been issued on 27th September, 2012.

5. Mr. Ghag, learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that, there is no allegation against Petitioner to have misused the fire arms in any manner against any person. That, out of the said eight cases two cases have been filed by the brother of the Petitioner and six cases are filed by only one person i.e. namely Shri. Damji Solanki and the same are instituted on the basis of Orders passed by the learned Magistrate on private complaints filed by him. That, out of eight cases registered against the Petitioner, in three cases the Police have submitted Summary Reports before the concerned Courts. That, the Authorities of Respondent-State have failed to consider the nature of criminal cases instituted against the Petitioner while arriving at its subjective satisfaction for revoking the licence granted to the Petitioner. He submitted that, the Competent Authority issued show cause notice dated 6th October, 2009 under Section 17 (3)(d) however passed Order under Section 17 (3)(b) of the Arms Act and therefore impugned Order dated 1st January, 2010 is bad in law and not in consonance with the show cause notice issued by the Competent Authority. Mr. Ghag, however fairly did not dispute the fact that, on the date of issuance of show cause notice dated 6th October, 2009 eight criminal cases were registered/pending against the Petitioner.

Mr. Ghag submitted that, merely because FIR’s were/are registered against the Petitioner, arms licence can not be suspended or revoked. In order to suspend or revoke the arms licence under Section 17(3) (b) of the Arms Act, it must be shown that the licencing authority felt it necessary for the security of public peace or public safety, to suspend or revoke it. He submitted that, Order passed by the Competent Authority dated 1st January, 2010 cancelling his arms licence is not a speaking Order. There is no material on record to show that either the Petitioner had misused the arms or it had resulted into breach of public peace. In support of his submissions, he relied on following decisions :

(i) Crasent Luas D’Mello Vs. Hon’ble Home Minister, Home Ministry, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mum