JUDGMENT

Parth Prateem Sahu, J. -The appellant has questioned the legality and validity of the order dated 20.04.2017 passed by learned writ court declining to interfere with the order passed by Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur.

2. Brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that the appellant has been granted Arms license for a fire arm (English Gun bearing No.10558 having licence No. 19898/12/74) in the year 1974 by the competent authority. A Show Cause notice was issued to the appellant for cancellation of license on 06.04.1991 and on the same date, another letter for suspension of the said Arms license was also issued to him. Show Cause notice was replied by the appellant on 18.04.1991 and thereafter, considering all the material available on record, the District Magistrate, Durg vide order dated 01.08.1997 passed an order of cancellation of Arms license of the appellant and was intimated with a copy of cancellation of license by the Office of District Magistrate, Durg vide order dated 05.08.1997.

3. The appellant has challenged the order of intimation before the Commissioner, Education Division, Raipur on the grounds mentioned therein. The Commissioner after hearing the parties, vide order dated 07.04.2000, dismissed the appeal by a detailed order after examining the reasons assigned in the order of cancellation order dated 01.08.1997 and the ground raised by the appellant in his plea. The order of commissioner rejecting the appeal of the appellant vide order dated 07.04.2000 was challenged before the High Court in a Writ-Petition-670/2002 which also came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 20.04.2017. The order of writ court is under challenge in this appeal on the grounds that cancellation of license was on vague allegations, there was no satisfaction recorded by the licensing authority before cancellation of the arms license granted to him; there is no allegation of provocation of any provision under Arms Act; the appellant was acquitted in all cases alleged on him with respect to the theft cases of two wheelers, there was no instance available in the police record that the appellant was endangering security of public peace or safety and also that he was not afforded any opportunity to file rejoinder before the writ court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant apart from the aforementioned grounds in the writ appeal, further submitted that the District Magistrate while passing the order of cancellation, not afforded proper opportunity of hearing to him and the order of cancellation was passed on the same date i.e. 6.4.1991 before submitting his reply and there was no allegation on him with respect to use of fire arm for which the license was issued in his favour. He placed his reliance in the matters of Shesh Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar and others, (1985) CriLJ 1601 ; Gurudayal Singh Vs Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division and others, (2004) 136 PunLR 463 ; the judgment passed by the MP High Court in Writ Appeal No.511 of 2012 in Dileep Singh Vs State of MP decided on 26.09.2013; in the matter of State Vs Sahab Ram in Civil Special Appeal No.11 of 2010 decided on 10.01.2011 by the Rajasthan High Court in support of his contention.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that there are about 26 criminal cases of different nature of offences pending against the appellant as per the police records and therefore the Superintendent of Police made an application before the District Magistrate, Durg for initiating proceedings for cancellation of arm license of the appellant. A detailed show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 06.04.1991 in which the act of commission of offences and its nature was mentioned in detail. He also submitted that the appellant was provided with an opportunity to submit his reply and thereafter the order of cancellation was passed on 01.08.1997, after a period of more than 6 1/2 years from the date of issuance of show-cause notice. He supported the impugned order