JUDGMENT :

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri N.K. Singh, Advocate for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 3.7.2009 passed by District Magistrate, Hardoi cancelling firearm licence of petitioner under section 17(3) of Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1959") and appellate order dated 29.7.2009 passed by Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow rejecting petitioner's appeal.

3. A show cause notice was issued to petitioner as to why his firearm licence be not cancelled since a criminal case being Case Crime No. 410 of 2007, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, I.P.C. has been registered against him and therefore, it appears that petitioner has misused his firearm.

4. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 28.12.2007 in which he denied all the allegations and stated in respect of criminal case registered against him that he was not present at the place of incident and he is not engaged in any criminal activities.

5. Without considering petitioner's reply, in a mechanical manner relying on police report dated 18.9.2007, pursuant whereto show cause notice was issued to petitioner, District Magistrate has passed a prototype order observing that as per police report since petitioner is a person of criminal nature and has misused his firearm in committing crime registered as Case Crime No. 410 of 2007, therefore, he has violated the terms and conditions of licence and it is not appropriate to allow firearm to continue with him in the interest of public peace and safely.

6. It is contended that reply given by petitioner is not at all considered and District Magistrate has not noticed as to how reply of petitioner in respect of facts which are alleged against him, are proved to be incorrect and the order passed by District Magistrate in effect is wholly unreasoned and illegal. Same error has been committed by Commissioner also as he has also reiterated what has been stated by District Magistrate.

7. The order passed by District Magistrate reads as under:

^^i=koyh dk voyksdu djus ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd ykblsal/kkjd ds fo#) dkj.k crkvks uksfVl fuxZr fd;s tkus dk eq[; vk/kkj mlds fo#) /kkjk 147@148@149@307@504 HkkŒnŒfoŒ ds varxZr vkijkf/kd eqdnek iathd`r gksuk Fkk ftldh foospuk ls izFke n`"V;k vfHk;ksx izekf.kr gksus ij vkjksi&i= U;k;ky; dks Hkstk x;k vkSj eqdnek U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA lgk;d vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh }kjk rdZ izLrqr djrs gq;s dgk x;k gS fd ykblsal/kkjd iz'uxr ?kVuk esa iz'uxr ?kVuk esa lfEefyr Fkk ftlds dkj.k mlds fo#) vkjksi i= U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr fd;k tk pqdk gSA mDr of.kZr lexz rF;ks ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij lE;d~ fopkj djus ds mijkar eS bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaPkk gwW fd ykblsla/kkjd ds i{k us iz'uxr 'kL= dk ykblsal mldh tkueky dh lqj{kk gsrq Lohd`r fd;k x;k Fkk ijarq mld fo#) gR;k ds iz;kl tSls t?kU; izd`fr dk eqdnek U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA ,sls O;fDr ds ikl 'kL= dk jguk tu'kkfaUr ,oa tulqj{kk ds n`f"Vdks.k ls mfpr ,oa U;k;laxr ugha gSA mDr of.kZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds ykblsal/kkjd dk iz'uxr 'kL= ykblsal fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA^^

"It appears by perusing the file that the main ground to issue Show-Cause Notice against the License Holder is the criminal case registered against him under section 147/148/149/307/504, I.P.C., the investigation thereof prima-facie proved the charge, and consequently the charge-sheet was filed before the Court. The case is pending before the Court. The Assistant Prosecution Officer has contended that the License Holder was involved in the impugned incident due to which the charge-sheet has been filed against him before the Court. Duly considering the entire aforementioned facts and circumstances, I arrived at the conclusion that the impugned Arms License had been granted in favour of the License Holder for the safety of his person and property, but a heinous crime like attempt to murder is pending against him before the Court. Continuing arms license with such person