Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J.—Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

2. The petitioner was granted a licence in the year 2003 for possessing a fire arm. By an order dated 21.7.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, the licence of the petitioner had been cancelled. Challenging the said order the petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed by order dated 22.11.2008. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, this writ petition has been filed.

3. The sole ground for cancelling the licence of the petitioner as has been stated in the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate is that the petitioner was carrying his fire arm in public place even though orders under Section 144, Cr.P.C. had been passed. It has been stated in the said order that there was every likelihood of the petitioner mis-using his fire arm. The appeal of the petitioner has also been dismissed on the same ground. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner nor has the petitioner been ever found guilty of mis-using his fire arm.

4. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not been found guilty of mis-using his fire arm nor there is even any allegation of the respondents that the petitioner has mis-used his fire arm, merely because the petitioner was possessing fire arm in public place and there could be chance of his mis-using the fire arm, the licence of the petitioner could not have been cancelled. The petitioner was granted the fire arm licence after due enquiry. Even after the grant of fire arm licence, the petitioner has never been found to have mis-used the same. Merely because of apprehension, the order cancelling the licence of the petitioner cannot be justified in law. The order cancelling the fire arm licence has to be based on valid reasons. The reason for cancelling the licence in the present case is wholly unjustified. As such the orders impugned in this writ petition deserve to be quashed.

5. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 22.11.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra and the order dated 21.7.2007 passed by District Magistrate, Hathras are quashed. The licence of the petitioner shall be restored in his favour forthwith and the fire arm, if already deposited, shall be released in favour of the petitioner.

6. No order as to cost.

————