Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This intra court appeal impugns the judgment dated 22nd December, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.8111/2014 preferred by the appellant. The said writ petition was filed impugning the order dated 6th August, 2014 of the Lt. Governor of Delhi of dismissal / rejection of the appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 preferred by the appellant against the order dated 1st April, 2014 of the Additional Commissioner of Police (ACP) (Licensing) revoking the arms licence of the appellant.

2. This appeal came up for admission on 12th February, 2015 when the counsel for the respondents Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) and ACP (Licensing) appeared on advance notice and with the consent of the counsels, arguments in the appeal were finally heard and judgment reserved.

3. The appellant, claiming to be carrying on business as a Cable TV Service Provider, in the year 2006 applied for and was granted an arms licence which was renewed from time to time. The ACP (Licensing), vide order-cum-show cause notice dated 31st October, 2013 suspended the arms licence of the appellant with immediate effect and called upon the appellant to deposit the licenced weapon with the nearest Police Station immediately and to show cause, as to why the arms licence of the appellant should not be cancelled on the ground of the appellant, at the time of applying for renewal of the licence, having not intimated the factum of his being involved in case FIR No.409/2010 dated 27th December, 2010 under Sections 302/34 IPC of Police Station K.N. Katju Marg, New Delhi and in case FIR No.280/2013 dated 24th August, 2013 under Sections 323/341/336/506/34 IPC of Police Station Rani Bagh, New Delhi, and for which reason the ACP (Licensing) was of the view that the appellant was “not a fit person to hold an arms licence in the interest of public safety at large”.

4. The appellant submitted a reply dated 8th November, 2013 to the aforesaid show cause notice stating, that he had been falsely implicated in case FIR No.409/2010 and had been acquitted on 8th August, 2012 and that the complainant in case FIR No.280/2013 had himself, when the appellant had applied for bail thereunder, filed an affidavit that the FIR had been lodged as a result of misunderstanding and further that with the consent of the complainant, the said FIR stood quashed on 16th December, 2013. The appellant further replied that his licenced weapon had never been used in the commission of any crime nor was the case property in any crime and that he “had not intentionally concealed” the said facts, while applying for renewal of the licence and the said facts remained to be stated out of “sheer inadvertence”.

5. The ACP (Licensing) vide order dated 1st April, 2014 cancelled the arms licence of the appellant, observing; (i) that a perusal of the order dated 8th August, 2012 in case FIR No.409/2010 supra showed that the appellant had been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and the Court had passed strictures against the local police for faulty investigation etc.; (ii) that FIR No.280/2013 had also been quashed on the ground of settlement with the complainant and subject to cost of Rs.25,000/- on the appellant and the same also did not constitute an honourable acquittal; (iii) rather, the FIRs against the appellant showed the propensity of the appellant to indulge in quarrel with the others; (iv) that the failure of the appellant to disclose the said facts was in violation of the Arms Act; and, (v) that the appellant was thus indeed not a fit person to hold an arms licence.

6. The Lt. Governor, Delhi dismissed / rejected the statutory appeal preferred by the appellant, further noting that perjury proceedings had been initiated against the person on whose statement the appellant had been acquitted in case FIR No.409/2010 and observing that the order of the ACP (Licensing) of revocation of licence was fair and there was no reason to interfere therewith.

7. The