JUDGMENT :

Neeraj Tiwari, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was issued arms licence of pistol by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur vide order dated 14.6.2013 and accordingly, he purchased the pistol. He next submitted that District Magistrate, Gorakhpur-respondent no. 3 issued show cause notice under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1959) to the petitioner on 12.10.2015 as to why his licence may not be cancelled, against which petitioner filed reply on 9.3.2016. Ultimately respondent no. 3 vide impugned order dated 10.5.2016 cancelled the arms licence of the petitioner only on the ground of apprehension. Petitioner is a law abiding person and during course of Panchayat Election, 2015, he deposited his pistol in the Malkhana of Police Station Gagaha. He next submitted that in the impugned order, it has been observed that in an incident, petitioner himself has received injury, but contrary to that, his arms licence has been cancelled on the ground of apprehension only. Against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 17 (3) of the Act, 1959 which was also dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 17.02.2018 affirming the order of the respondent no. 3. He next submitted that petitioner is having no criminal case except challan under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. and 151 I.P.C. in which he was released on furnishing the bail bond. The term of challan under the aforesaid sections expires after six months.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Satyendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported as 2016 0 Supreme (All) 358, Hiramani Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported as 2010 LawSuit (All) 3030 decided on 15.12.2010, Rajendra Singh Vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and others reported as 2011 LawSuit(All) 2876 decided on 10.03.2011 and Mulayam Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported as 2012 LawSuit(all) 1651 decided on 14.05.2012.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that in the matter of Satyendra Bahadur Singh (supra) which is based on same facts, the Court has taken the view that on the ground of apprehension, arms licence cannot be cancelled. He next submitted that in the aforesaid three other judgments, the Court has also taken the view that even in case of pendency of solitary criminal case, arms licence cannot be cancelled, therefore, the impugned orders dated 10.5.2016 and 17.2.2018 are bad in law and liable to be quashed.

5. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, impugned orders as well as judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. The undisputed fact is that petitioner is having no criminal case except challan under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. and 151 I.P.C. Further he himself received gun shot injury from his rivals and he has also been released under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. and 151 I.P.C. after furnishing the bail bond even otherwise its a preventive measure. In the impugned order, reason for cancellation of arms licence is only apprehension and there is no finding to demonstrate that continuance of arms licence is harmful for public peace or safety. The appellate authority has also affirmed the order of the District Magistrate-respondent no. 3 without considering this fact that apprehension cannot be a ground for cancellation of arms licence coupled with no criminal incident of licence holder i.e. petitioner.

7. In the first judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Satyendra Bahadur Singh (Supra) the Court has held that on the ground of apprehension,