Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Head Sri B.K. Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri K.K. Shukla, learned State counsel and perused the record.

2. Petitioner/Sri Hridya Narain Tiwari, has been granted an arms licence No. 805 by the Licensing Authority/O.P.No. 2 against the same he holds N.P. Bore Revolver. By an order dated 12.12.2006 passed by Licensing Authority/District Magistrate, Ambedker Nagar, the licence of the petitioner has been suspended and he was asked to submit his reply that why his licence should not cancelled keeping in view the report dated 25.11.2006 and 21.11.2006 submitted by Superintendent of Police and Prabhari Nirikshat Kotwali, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar on the ground that the petitioner had misused his arm in an incident took place on 20.11.2006, as a result of which he has been implicated in Crime Case No. 134/2007 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and in Case No. 107/116 Cr. P.C. as such a recommendation has been made by the police authorities of the district to the licensing authority that the petitioner should not be allowed to keep his arms with him in order to maintain public peace and safety (Lok Hit and Lok Parishanti), after receiving the same the petitioner submitted his reply.

3. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner as well as taking into consideration the material facts/report on record, the report submitted by the Prabhari Nirikhak Kotwali, Akparpur dated 4.2.2013 that the petitioner has used his arm in a public place, thus keeping the public peace and safety as well as a criminal case initiated against him in which he has been enlarged only bail, the licensing authority/O.P.No. 2 by an order dated 9.4.2010 had cancelled the petitioner’s arms licnece with a finding that the petitioner has misused his arms by firing in the incidence taken place on 20.11.2006 which is against the public peace and safety, so not entitled to retain the arms licence.

4. Aggrieved by the said fact, the petitioner filed an appeal, dismissed by the appellate authority by an order dated 8.11.2010.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner while assailing the impugned order submits that the action on the part of official respondent thereby cancelling the petitioner’s arms licence and dismissing the appeal only on the mere involvement in a criminal case is not a ground for cancellation, hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and writ petition may be allowed.

6. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the following judgment :

1. Mewa Lal @ Kunnu v. Commissioner Allahabad Division Allahabad and another, Writ Petition No. 165 (MS) of 2012, judgment and order dated 13.1.2014

2. Hond. Haroon v. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar, 2003 (21) CLD 548

3. Mulayam Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (80) ACC 786

7. Learned State counsel while supporting the the impugned orders under challenge in the present case submits that the same is in accordance with law as the licensing authority after considering the material facts on record has given a categorical finding of fact that the petitioner has misused his arms which is against the public peace and safely, so there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders under challenge in the present case, accordingly, writ petition liable to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record.

8. In our Constitution and jurisprudence there is no fundamental right to bear arms unlike the Second Amendment to the American Constitution which at least suggests such a right in the following terms :

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

9. In construing the aforesaid provision the Supreme Court of the United States in Presser v. Illinois, (1884-85) 116 US 252, has observed as under:

“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force o