JUDGMENT :

(1). Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(2). At the very outset, learned counsel for petitioner submits that due to inadvertent the challenge to the impugned orders could not be incorporated in the prayer clause and consequently, prays that he may be permitted to assail the validity of the impugned orders dated 06.09.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh under Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act and dated 21.11.2007 passed by learned Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad.

(3). Learned Standing Counsel for the State did not object the same.

(4). Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to incorporate necessary amendment in the prayer clause during the course of the day.

(5). By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 06.09.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh under Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act and also order dated 21.11.2007 passed by learned Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad.

(6). It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner moved an application to the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh to grant him SBBL Gun Licence on account of the fact that the father of the petitioner was murdered in the year 1997 on 11.04.1997. It is further submitted that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner before the murder of this father in Case Crime No. 148 of 1996, under Sections 307, 323 and 504 IPC, Police Station Sangipur, District Pratapgarh. Subsequently, it seems that petitioner was involved in another criminal case in Case Crime No. 40 of 2006, under Sections 307, 323, 147, 148 & 149 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

(7). In the aforesaid circumstances, notice under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act was issued to the petitioner on 23.04.2007 asking him to show cause as to why his arm licence should not be cancelled. Apart from noticing that there are two criminal cases lodged against the petitioner, the licencing authority also mentioned that the petitioner had suppressed material information at the time of grant of licence, inasmuch as, he had concealed the fact that a criminal case in Case Crime No. 148 of 1996, under Sections 307, 323 and 504 IPC was pending against him when he applied for grant of arms licence. The petitioner replied to the notice issued by the District Magistrate on 05.02.2007 and after consideration of his response, which was found to be unsatisfactory, his licence was cancelled. While cancelling the said licence, the District Magistrate has invoked the provisions of Section 17 (3) (c)/(b) of the Arms Act. Against the order dated 06.09.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, who has also rejected his appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh by means of order dated 21.11.2007. Both the said orders have been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

(8). Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that in the year 1997 his father was murdered and the petitioner faced with the trauma of murder of his father and the insecurity to his life and the existing threat perception had to make an urgent application for grant of arms licence. Considering the grave urgency and threat to the life, the District Magistrate had immediately granted him the licence. It is stated that it is during those very dates that the First Information Report was also lodged against the petitioner in Case Crime No. 148 of 1996 under Sections 307, 323 and 504 IPC where the petitioner was implicated. He submits that there was no deliberate suppression of material information in his application so as to invoke the provisions of section 17 (3) (c) of the Arms Act. he submits that the District Magistrate has not considered his