Abhay M. Naik, J.

This petition has been preferred against the revocation of licence of firearm vide Annexures P/1 and P/2.

Short facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Narsinghpur. He is engaged in the business of stone crusher which is situated at a distance of about 35 Kms. from Narsinghpur which is near to the forest area. Petitioner on account of safety measure obtained Gun Licence No. 213/94. The Superintendent of Police, Narsinghpur wrote to the licensing authority that Criminal Cases Nos. 25/2000 and 517/2000 were pending against the petitioner and therefore, his licence may be suspended. A show cause notice u/s 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 for suspension of licence was issued to the petitioner, which was duly replied. Learned licensing authority vide his order dated 8-1-2001 revoked the licence of the petitioner and directed the officer-in-charge of Police Station, Narsinghpur to confiscate the 315 NP Bore Rifle with 10 live bullets. Order dated 8-1-2001 is on record as Annexure P/2 which was challenged before the Commissioner, Jabalpur in Appeal No. 13-121/2000-2001. Against the dismissal of appeal, W.P. No. 2097/2002 was preferred which was dismissed for want of prosecution. A fresh Writ Petition No. 586/2003 was submitted by the petitioner which was dismissed with liberty to seek restoration. A restoration application was filed as M.C.C. No. 3076/03 which was dismissed. Thereafter, a fresh writ petition bearing No. 27745/03 was dismissed on 1-10-2003 on the ground that subsequent writ petition with a prayer for earlier relief was not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred L.P.A. No. 915/03 which was dismissed on 2-1-2004 with liberty to make an application before the Licensing Authority. Pursuant thereto, petitioner filed an application before the licensing authority for revocation or order contained in Annexure P/3 dated 8-1-2001 on the ground that criminal cases registered against the petitioner have been dismissed. Respondent No. 2 on 3-10-2005 dismissed the application and confirmed the order dated 8-1-2001. This order is on record as Annexure P/1 which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 4-10-2005 contained in Annexure P/2.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier order dated 8-1-2001 (Annexure P/3) was passed when criminal cases were pending against the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not been convicted with imprisonment and that no criminal case is pending against him, the licence of firearm granted to the petitioner is liable to be restored after revoking its cancellation.

In the return, it is submitted that the gun licence granted to the petitioner was rightly cancelled on 2-3-1994 on account of pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner. It is further contended that looking to the activity of the petitioner, there was likelihood of misuse of the weapon, more so, because the petitioner was involved in number of criminal cases. Respondents have placed on record a chart (Annexure R/1) which contains particulars of various criminal cases registered against him. In view of the matter, it is submitted by the respondents that the arm licence of the petitioner has rightly been revoked and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Shri K.N. Fakhruddin, learned counsel and Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate argued in support of their respective pleas.

After considering the submissions, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to succeed.

Shri Bisen, learned G.A. contended that the impugned order has rightly been passed in exercise of powers under sub-clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 which is reproduced below:

(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence -

(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspen