Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—By way of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi dated 29.3.2005 whereby his Appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to the present petition are that the petitioner was issued a Licence for DBBL Gun No. 7500/21. The District Magistrate on 22.9.1998 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on the basis of a report submitted by the SHO Saidpur dated 16.8.1998 wherein it was reported that the petitioner’s son Anil Kumar Pandey had shot Ajay Kumar Pandey son of Surendra Deo Pandey a Case Crime No. 343 of 1998 under Sections 147/148/149/307 IPC and another Case Crime No. 229 of 1998 under Sections 504/506/427 IPC was registered. The second case was also registered wherein the incident was between same parties. The petitioner in response to the show-cause notice has submitted his reply wherein he has denied the allegations made in the show-cause notice. His case was that his son did not used the Gun as alleged in the show-cause notice and they were falsely implicated in the said Crime. The District Magistrate was not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner cancelled the Gun licence of the petitioner by means of order dated 11.8.1999.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate,dated 11.9.1999 the petitioner preferred an Appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. The Commissioner, of the Division dismissed the Appeal of the petitioner by the impugned order on the same ground mentioned in the order of the District Magistrate.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A.P.Kushwaha and learned standing counsel.The State has preferred not to file counter-affidavit. The Court has to proceed on the basis of facts of the Writ Petition with the consent of the parties. The Writ Petition is heard finally in terms of Rules of this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the District Magistrate and the Appellate Authority/Commissioner is erroneous on the ground that they had failed to consider that merely because a criminal case was pending against the petitioner,that may not be a ground to exercise the power by the Licensing Authority under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). He has relied on the judgment of this Court in Raj Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and others, (2009) (4) ADJ 549. The learned Standing Counsel has urged that the order of the District Magistrate and the order of the Commissioner do not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He invited the attention of the Court to the findings recorded by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner that if the petitioner is allowed to hold the license it would be against the security of the public peace and safety.

5. The only ground mentioned in the show-cause notice to the petitioner is that his son had used the licensed gun against Surendra Dev Pandey in an incident which is alleged to have taken place on 14.8.1998. There is no other allegation in the show-cause notice in the past the petitioner has ever used his gun for any illegal purpose. The petitioner in his reply has denied the allegations and submitted that he never misused his gun. However, the District Magistrate without applying his mind only on the basis of Police report has cancelled the gun licence of the petitioner.

6. It is significant to mention that the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur by his order dated 29.11.2004 in Case Crime No. 343 of 1998 has acquitted the petitioner and his son. The order of the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. With regard to other Criminal Case No. 229 of 1998 under Sections 504/506/427 IPC he was acquitted by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Saidpur, district Ghazipur on 17.3.2008. The order of the Civil Judge has been passed after the impug