Shabihul Hasnain,J.

Heard Sri R.S. Pande learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

2 Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. The matter is ripe for hearing and is being decided finally.

3. The petitioner has approached this court against the cancellation of his license passed by the District Magistrate dated 26.12.2008 as well as the rejection order passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad on 1.6.2009.

4. The petitioner has been granted an 'Arms license' on 15.5.2007.

5 It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was found involved in two cases, one Case Crime No. 103 of 2006 under Section 147, 283, 342, 352, 336 IPC and 7th Criminal Law Amendment Act and Case Crime No. 100 of 2007 under Section 417/283, 352 353, 336/188 IPC and 7th Criminal Law Amendment Act.

6 The petitioner was involved in blockage of highway and was sent to jail. It has been also stated that this act of the petitioner raises apprehension in the minds of the authorities that the petitioner is not a peace loving person and can create a law and order situation effecting the public security and safety. Neither in the counter affidavit nor in orders of Commissioner or the District Magistrate it has been mentioned that the petitioner has used his license given in the said act. The first criminal case was pending against the petitioner when he was granted license on 15.5.2007. Despite the pendency of this criminal case the authorities found it suitable that the petitioner may be granted license. The subsequent case is still pending before the trial court.

7. The petitioner counsel has forcefully argued that the licensed gun was not in the hands of the petitioner nor he is said to have been using it or threat being given by the petitioner on the strength of that gun. He has further argued that this act of the petitioner can not entitle the opposite parties to take away the license of the petitioner.

8. Considering these arguments this court has stayed the operation of both the orders on 16.7.2009. The stay order is continuing till date.

9. The petitioner has relied upon two cases of this court i.e. {2014(32) LCD 576} Allahabad High Court ( Lucknow Bench) ( Mewalal @ Kunnu versus Commissioner, Allahabad and another) W.P. No. 165 (M/S) of 2012 and {2006 (54) ACC 664}(Allahabad High Court) C.M.W.P. No. 43791 of 2004 ( Hargyan Singh vs. State of U.P. through Home Secretary, U.P. Lucknow and others).

10. A perusal of the order shows that several orders have been quoted in these two judgments and it has been decided that pendency of a criminal case will not automatically give any reason to the authorities to cancel arms license. These are the cases where the fire arm was said to have been used or misused. In the present case there is no allegation at all that the licensed gun was ever taken out by the petitioner and was used in the act.

11. In the case reported in {2012 (79) LCD 824} Allahabad High Court, (Lucknow Bench) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 112 of 2007 (Rajendra Singh vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and others) His Lordship has observed as follows:

"It is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arms act are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of license under Section 17(3) of the Act. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of license under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this court Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate, Basti and others wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way effect the public security or public interest. The law propounded in the said decisions has been subsequently followed in Habib v. State of U.P., reported in 2002 ACC 7