ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 25.6.2013 passed by Commissioner, Chambal Division, whereby the appeal against the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the Collector, Sheopur, was dismissed. Further the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the Collector, Sheopur whereby the arms license No.120/DM/Sheopur, issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that he is a dreaded criminal and is involved in various criminal cases.

2. The facts as stated reveals that in the year 2002, the petitioner applied for grant of license and after considering the documents submitted and after conducting a detailed scrutiny license No.120/DM/Sheopur was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, in the year 2004, on a recommendation by respondent No.4/Superintendent of Police that a criminal case No.50/2003 had been registered against the petitioner, respondent No. 3, the Collector cancelled the arms license. An appeal was preferred against the said cancellation by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, and vide order dated 11.3.2005 the matter was remanded back to the Collector, as it was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3. After remand Collector called a representation from the Superintendent of Police, which was received on 5.2.2008, wherein recommendation was not made for grant of license on the ground that in the criminal case there was an acquittal of the petitioner on the ground of compromise, which cannot be termed as a clean acquittal and since he had a criminal background.

4. The Collector under apprehension of misuse of the weapon called another report from Superintendent of Police. The said report was received on 30.6.2012, wherein it was mentioned that five cases in Police Station Vijaypur were registered against the petitioner, vide crime No. 53/03 u/s 323, 341, 294, 506B/34 I.P.C., vide crime No.123/04 u/s 147, 148, 149, 294 I.P.C. read with sections 3(1)(5) SC/ST Act, vide crime No. 66/05 u/s 323, 341, 324 I.P.C., vide crime No. 85/05 u/s 234, 323/34 I.P.C. and vide crime No.39/08 u/s 324, 323 I.P.C. In the report it was also mentioned that out of five cases in two the petitioner had been acquitted and two matters ended in compromise and one was closed by the Police and after 2008 there were no cases registered against the petitioner. Thus, on the basis of the representation of the Superintendent of Police and holding him to be a habitual criminal, the arms license was again cancelled by the Collector vide order dated 18.12.2012. Against the said order again an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before Commissioner, which also came to be dismissed. Hence this Petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that earlier the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police dated 26.5.2004 were on the premise that a crime u/s 323, 341, 294, 506B/34 I.P.C. vide crime No.50/2003 was registered against the petitioner, therefore, his license should be cancelled, but later it was found that under the said crime number the petitioner was not an accused, therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Collector, to decide it afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Collector, without ascertaining the fact as to whether a crime vide crime no.50/2003 had been registered against the petitioner, went on to call fresh representation and on the basis of those representations held that five cases were registered against the petitioner at Police Station Vijaypur, out of which two matters ended in compromise, which cannot be said to be clean acquittal and on the basis of the past history held the petitioner to be a habitual criminal, ignoring that in all the matters the petitioner had been acquitted and one matter was closed and after year 2008 no case had been registered against him, on a wrong premise cancelled the li