Cancellation of an arms license solely based on the pendency of criminal proceedings is illegal. The licensing authority must record specific, objective reasons demonstrating that the continued possession of the firearm by the holder poses an imminent threat to public peace and safety.

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vinay Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 22.12.2003 (Annexure-1) and 25.11.2008 (Annexure-2). Further prayer has been made to issue direction to the respondents not to revoke the D.B.B.L. license of the petitioner due to mere pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was issued Arms License No.5626/1998 bearing DBBL Gun No.99/73. One Neelam Srivastava, the then Gram Pradhan of Village Paharpur, P.S. Banthara, District Lucknow, due to some enmity, moved a complaint dated 19.7.2001 against the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Lucknow. The District Magistrate issued a show cause notice dated 5.9.2001 to the petitioner for suspending the said arms license of DBBL gun on the premise of pendency of three criminal cases being (i) Case Crime No.56/98 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307/302 IPC, (ii) Case Crime No.147/93 under Section 3/25 of Arms Act and (iii) Case Crime No.8/2001 under Section 364 IPC.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner replied to the show cause notice and engaged a counsel to represent him on the dates fixed but the counsel failed to put in appearance and consequently, the arms license of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 22.12.2003.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.1 against the order dated 22.12.2003, which has also been dismissed ex parte vide order dated 25.11.2008. The petitioner upon coming to know about the dismissal of the appeal, filed a review application and the same was also rejected vide order dated 25.7.2012.

6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the the licensing authority who once granted the arms license cannot cancel the same casually and mechanically under Clause-A of Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, the license can be cancelled if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the license is prohibited by any other law for the time being in force, for acquiring/ having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason, unfit for a license under this Act. He submits that Clause-b provides that if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to revoke the license only then the license can be revoked. It is submitted that in the present case, the respondents have failed to record their satisfaction to the effect that the revocation of the petitioner's arms license is necessary for the security of the public peace and public safety.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that public peace and safety does not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order because public safety means safety of public at large. In the present case, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to consider this mandatory provision because mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of arms license and more so when there was no allegation to the effect that the fire arm which was registered on the arms license of the petitioner was subjected to any kind of misuse.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arms license of the petitioner was cancelled on the premise of pendency of three criminal cases (mentioned in paragraph-3 above). He submits that in Case Crime No.56/98, the petitioner ha