If the licensee is acquitted in criminal cases, there remains no material for cancelling the arms license.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Moin, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief’s:--

"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned orders dated 30.1.2017 and 15.6.2015 passed by the opposite party No. 1 and 2 as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to this writ petition.

Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to give effect to the impugned orders contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to this writ petition.

Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

Allow this writ petition with costs."

3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that he was holding an arms license for an SBBL Gun vide license No. 132. In the year 2012, there was some dispute of the petitioner with his neighbours which resulted into an FIR being lodged against the petitioner and several others under the provisions of sections 147, 148, 307, 336, 323, 506, 506 IPC at Police Station-Dostpur District-Sultanpur which was registered as Case Crime No. 400 of 2012. It is also contended that a counter FIR was also lodged which was registered as Case Crime No. 400-A of 2012. Taking into consideration the said FIR, initially the petitioner was issued a notice dated 21.7.2012 under the provisions of section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1959"). Thereafter, in case No. 37 In re; State v. Mohd. Hashim, after considering the reply of the petitioner and considering the fact that the aforesaid Case Crime No. 400 of 2012 had been registered against the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid dispute and there was every likelihood of the petitioner misusing his weapon, the District Magistrate, Sultanpur vide order dated 15.6.2015 cancelled the Arms License No. 132 of the petitioner. Copy of the said order is Annexure 2 to the petition.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said order preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad vide Appeal No. 222/Sultanpur under the provision of section 18 of the Act, 1959. The said appeal was also rejected by indicating the very same facts which had been indicated while cancelling the arms license vide order dated 30.1.2017. Copy of the said order dated 30.1.2017 is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner being aggrieved against both the orders is now before this Court.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that both the orders by which the arms license has been cancelled dated 15.6.2015 as well as the order by which the appeal has been rejected vide order dated 30.1.2017 reflect patent non application of mind and the authorities have proceeded on the basis of a probability of misuse of weapon. It is contended that such probability could not have been considered by the authority while cancelling the arms license. It is also contended that in the aforesaid case crime No. 400 of 2012, the petitioner has already been acquitted by the Court of Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Sultanpur vide judgment and order dated 1.7.2017, a copy of which has been filed as annexure RA 2 to the rejoinder affidavit. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits at the bar that the said order has attained finality inasmuch as no party has challenged the said order of acquittal. Thus, it is contended that the very basis of passing of the order of cancellation of the arms license is now gone and consequently, the order dated 15.6.2015 and the appellate order dated 30.1.2017 merit to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of the averments contained in the counter affidavit has supported the both the orders dated 15.6.2015 and 30.1.2017 by contending that the order cancelling the arm