JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner was granted an arms license in September 2001. His license was suspended in December 2002. After notice to the petitioner, his arms license was thereafter canceled by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur vide order dated 6.3.2003. Against the said order the petitioner filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Region, Varanasi on 15.10.2003. After making observations and recording findings in favour of the petitioner, the matter was remanded back to the licensing authority for taking fresh decision. Thereafter by order dated 7.6.2004 passed by the District Maigstrate, Jaunpur the license of the petitioner has again been cancelled. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
3. The main ground of cancellation of the license of the petitioner is that he was involved in case crime no. 89 of 1992 under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. read with Section 3(2) of the S.C./S.T. Act and also in case crime no. 100 of 2002 under Section 307 I.P.C. The other ground for such cancellation of the petitioner is that he did not provide the correct information that he was a permanent resident of a different place and had only shown his present address in the application form.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in both the criminal cases which were registered against him. Copies of such Judgments have been filed as Annexure Nos. 6 and 7 to the writ petition which have not been denied by the State-respondent in the counter affidavit. As regards the other ground that the petitioner did not disclose his permanent address, it may be observed that it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner is not resident of the place which has been shown by him in his application form. Thus, when the the petitioner has actually given his correct address, he cannot be said to be guilty of misrepresentation which may form basis of cancellation of his arms license.
5. Accordingly, in view of the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in both the criminal cases which have been registered against him, and also the fact that it cannot be said that he has misrepresented to the authorities while applying for grant of the arms license and also keeping in view that the respondent-authorities have not brought on record that there is any other criminal case pending antendents against the petitioner or that he is a person of criminal antendents the cancellation of his arms license does not appear to be justified. A citizen has a right to possess an arms license, unless he is found unfit or disqualified for valid reasons. Since in the present case, as already observed above, the reasons for cancellation of arms license is not proper or justified, the order dated 7.6.2004 impugned in this petition is liable to be set aside and is hereby quashed.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 7.6.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, respondent No.2 is quashed. No order as to costs.