Hon’ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, J.—By means of this writ petition under-Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 15.11.2008 & 24.2.2010 passed by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 contained in Annexures 1 and 2 respectively and for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to return the Arm Licence of the writ petitioner.

2. Heard both the parties and have gone through the records.

3. Briefly stated the relevant facts, for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are that the petition was issued an armed licence which was suspended by the District Magistrate and a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he replied. The petitioner could not satisfy to the whims of the District Magistrate and ultimately his licence was canceled vide order in question which he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, but in vain. Hence, the petitioner has approached to this Court.

4. The ground for issue of show-cause notice, suspension and ultimately cancellation of the licence is that one and preceisely one criminal case was registered against the petitioner. The District Magistrate has also held that the petitioner has been enlarged on bail. He has gone further to observe that if the licence remained intact, the petitioner, may disturb public peace and tranquility. The same findings have been given by the Commissioner, Unmindful of the fact that this Court is repeating the law of the land, but the deaf ears of the administrative officers do not ready to succumb the law of the land. The settled law is that mere involvement in a criminal case without any finding that involvement in such criminal case shall be detrimental to public peace and tranquility shall not create the ground for the cancellation of Armed Licence. In Ram Suchi v. Commissioner, Devipatan Division, 2004 (22) LCD 1643, it was held that this law was relied upon in Balram Singh v. State of U.P., 2006 (24) LCD 1359. Mere apprehension without substance is simply an opinion which has no legs to stand. Personal whims are not allowed to be reflected while acting as a public servant.

5. In some earlier decisions, two full benches of this Court have held in Kailash Nath v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 All 291, a right is distinct from a mere privilege. The case of licence to possess or use fire-arm is materially different from a case of licence to deal in or sell fire-arm. Nevertheless, the act of canceling or refusing to renew a licence leads to grave consequences. It was further held, the withdrawal or refusal to renew the subsisting licence is intrinsically a quasi-judicial act and, therefore, it attracts the rules of natural justice. That is why, the statute also insists on such action being taken in a most circumspect and cautious manner. In Changa Prasad Sahu v. State of U.P., AIR 1986 All 142, full bench of this Court relied upon various earlier authorities of this Court and the High Courts of Orissa, Kerala and Punjab, wherein it has been held that the licencing authority is, before making an order revoking/suspending of arms licence under-Section 17 (3) of the Act is bound to follow the principles of natural justice and to afford an opportunity to the licensee.

6. Any Constitutional or statutory authority acts judicially while determining the rights of citizen or imposing any penalty. They are expected to perform their judicial functioning in accordance with law of the land without causing any undue harassment. In Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, AIR 1992 SC 1815, it has been held, “Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment.”

“Recently in Gurdev Kaur and others v. Kaki and others, AIR 2006 SC 1975, the Hon’ble Apex Court has given a note of caution to such orders which are stagmatic on the justice delivery system in the mind of the public at large and has held; “Judges must administer law acco