1. - By an application being I.A. No. 13883/08, the petitioner seeks to implead the State of Rajasthan as party respondent. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the State of Rajasthan being a necessary party, the application is allowed and the State of Rajasthan is impleaded as party respondent.

2. By an another application being I.A. No. 13882/08, the petitioner seeks to take on record the document annexed with the application as Annex. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, since the document is relevant decision of criminal Court acquitting the petitioner, therefore, the application is allowed and the document annexed with the application as Annex. 7 is taken on record.

3. With the consent of learner: counsel for the parties, the writ petition is finally heard and decided at the admission stage.

4. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the order Annex. 4 dated 6.7.2006 passed by respondent District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar as also the order Annex. 6, dated 25.6.2007 passed by respondent Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner on an appeal filed by the petitioner against the 1 order Annex. 4.

5. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was granted an Arms Licence No. 10/2001/SGNR for 12 bore gun by the respondent District Magistrate on 7.11.2001 vide Annex. 1. The Arms Licence was valid up to 3.11.2005. The petitioner applied for renewal of the Arms Licence under Section 15 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short "the Arms Act" hereinafter) on 28.10.2005 much prior to the expiry of the period of validity of the Arms Licence vide Annex. 2. However, the petitioner was asked by the respondent District Magistrate to file an affidavit giving details of the cases pending against him The petitioner disclosed the case pending against him being for the offences under Sections 361 and 340 IPC, however, stated that the alleged pendency of the criminal case is not effecting the peace and tranquillity. By order Annex.4 dated 6.7.2006 the respondent District Magistrate declined to renew the Arms Licence issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent Divisional Commissioner which too came to be dismissed by order impugned dated 25.6.2007. Hence this writ petition.

6. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents stating therein that the petitioner did not submit the complete details of criminal cases registered against him. At the time of consideration of the application for renewal of the Arms Licence, criminal cases were pending against the petitioner. Apart from the cases referred in the order impugned, two other cases pertaining to the various offences of IPC were pending.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the certified copy of the order dated 15.3.2008 acquitting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 504 IPC.I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there being no criminal case pending against the petitioner as on date and even on the relevant date of passing the orders impugned, the criminal case which was pending against the petitioner is not indicating that the refusal to renew the Arms Licence is necessary for security of the public peace or public safety. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Khem Singh v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2005 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 907 wherein this Court held that Licensing Authority may revoke a licence if it deem necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. The power of suspension of Arms licence is necessary concomitant of power of revocation for effective control and regulation as also for the security of the public peace or public safety. Such a power has to be exercised with great circumspection. The satisfaction o