Heard Sri S.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 19.09.2006 passed by District Magistrate, Raebareli thereby cancelling the petitioner's arms licence under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act and the order dated 27.01.2010 passed by Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow thereby dismissing the petitioner's appeal.

Facts in brief of the present case are that the petitioner has been granted an Arms licence in the year 1987 in respect to DBBL gun having licence No. 2407.

On 28.12.2005, a report has been submitted against the petitioner by the concerned police station that the petitioner has misused his gun in an incidence and in respect to the said incidence a case has been registered against the petitioner (Case No. 65/2005 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 307, 436 I.P.C. .

In view of the abovesaid facts, the gun licnece of the petitioner has been suspended and on 25.02.2006 and a show cause notice has been issued to him to submit his reply to which he submitted his reply.

On 19.09.2006, the matter has come up for hearing before the licensing authority/District Magistrate, Raebareli. On the said date, the petitioner was not present and on the basis of the material on record, the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority by means of the order dated 19.06.2006 has cancelled the licence of the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the said fact, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act (appeal No. 624/200-2010 (Thakur Prasad Mishra Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh), dismissed by means of order dated 27.01.2010, hence present writ petition has been filed.

After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, the position which emerge out is that on the basis of the report of the police authority/Superintendent of Police Raebareli that the petitioner has used his gun in an incidence in which a criminal case No. 65-A/2005 has been initiated, initially the arms licence of the petitioner has been cancelled by the District Magistrate, Raebareli and thereafter the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed.

Further, while passing the impugned order also the licensing authority has not given any adequate finding that if petitioner holds the arms licnece then the same shall be against the public peace or public safety.

"Public peace" or "public safety" do not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order public safety means safety of the public at large and not safety of few persons only and before passing of the order of cancellation of arm license as per Section 17(3) of the Act the Licensing Authority is under an obligation to apply his mind to the question as to whether there was eminent danger to public peace and safety involved in the case in view of the judgment given by this Court in the case of Ram Murli Madhukar Vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998(16) LCD 905], wherein it has been held that license can not be suspended or revoked on the ground of public interest (Jan-hit) merely on the registration of an F.I.R. and pending of a criminal case.

Further, this Court in the case of Habib Vs. State of U.P., 2002 ACC 783, held as under:-

"The question as to whether mere Involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. District Magistrate, Basti and Ors,. 1978 AWC 122, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision in Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot, in any way, affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking the licence of fire arm has been set aside. The present impugned orders also suffer from the same infirmity as was pointed out by the Division Bench in the above-menti