Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Sri Paavan Awasthi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Apoorva Tewari, and Sri Puneet Chandra, Advocate learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri M.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and the learned Standing Counsel.

2. The afore-captioned Special Appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 3.5.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2691 (MS) of 2012; Raj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others and has prayed for expunging the adverse remarks made against them and for setting aside the recovery of costs from the appellants.

3. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that one Raj Kumar Singh, resident of village Bani, District Lucknow, had preferred Writ Petition No. 2691(MS) of 2008 against the order of cancellation dated 7.11.2006 passed Sri N.P. Singh, Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Lucknow, and the order dated 7.2.2008 passed by Sri Vijay Shaker Pandey, Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, in Appeal No. 651/2005-06 preferred by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act against the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Lucknow, cancelling the licence.

4. According to the said petitioner, he was granted a firm arm license of one N.P. Bore Revolver No. B-5597 under license No. 15686 issued on 2.2.2000 by the licensing authority. On 20.12.2002, a show-cause notice was issued by Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow to the petitioner calling for an explanation to show-cause as to why his fire-arm licence may not be cancelled on account of pendency of 13 criminal cases pending against him to which petitioner tendered his reply stating therein that except one case registered as case crime No. 68/2002 under Section 323,504 IPC in all other cases either the police had submitted final report or he has been acquitted by the competent Court. However, the Additional District Magistrate without considering the reply of the petitioner, passed order for cancellation of the arm licence of the petitioner.

5. Being dis-satisfied with the order of cancellation, the petitioner, aforesaid, filed an Appeal No. 651/2005-06 before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, who without considering and dealing the pleas as raised by the petitioner, rejected the appeal in a cursory manner vide order 7.2.2008. Therefore, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 2691 (MS) of 2008 challenging both the aforesaid orders.

6. The learned Single Judge vide its judgment and order dated 3.5.2012 while quashing the aforesaid both the orders and allowing the writ petition observed as under :

“The impugned order contained in annexures No. 1 passed by the Opposite party No. 2 shows that he has neither applied his mind nor has shown any will to fulfill his constitutional obligations. The impugned order is ex facie a waste paper. Out of thirteen cases shown to have been registered against the petitioner, only one case pertains to the year 2002. Inspite of the pendency of 12 criminal cases against him, the opposite party No. 1 sanctioned him Armed licence. How he can take notice of this fact for suspension/cancellation of the lincence? The commissioner, as it appears from his judgment, has no judicial mind. He has gone to observe that the petitioner has a long criminal history. After all, a judicial authority is bound to apply the rule of law and, as such, the commissioner was expected to have basic knowledge of the Arms Act. Section 17 of the Arms Act deals with variation, suspension and revocation of licences. Under this provision, an arm licence can be suspended or revoked, if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or for any law for the time being enforced to acquire a licence or was of unsound mind or unfit to have a licence for any legal and valid reason or a licence holder is posing a threat to the security of the public peace or pub