JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself.
2. The petitioner was granted an arms license by the District Magistrate, Banda. Thereafter by an order dated 31.7.2002 passed by the District Magistrate the arms license of the petitioner had been placed under suspension and the petitioner was required to show cause why his license should not be cancelled. The petitioner in his reply submitted that all the cases, which had been filed against him, had been either decided in his favour or final reports had been submitted and thus there was no reasonable ground on which his license could be either suspended or cancelled. However, by the order dated 21.3.2003 passed by District Magistrate, Banda the license of the petitioner has been cancelled. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda. on 22.4.2003. Aggrieved by the said orders the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. It has been categorically stated in the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate that although the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. but a perusal of the judgment shows that his acquittal has been on technical grounds because all the witnesses had turned hostile. It has further been stated that the conduct, of the petitioner has not been good and he had been involved in cases under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. on five occasions. Besides this, the petitioner had been arrested on spot while committing breach of peace and thus his conduct not being very good, for the well being of the society, the arms license of the petitioner should be cancelled.
4. It is true that the petitioner in the present case may have been acquitted on technical grounds but his overall conduct not being very proper and there being a categorical finding of fact that he is associated with criminal elements of the society and that the cases in which he was acquitted, was only on technical ground because the witnesses had turned hostile, in my view this may not be a fit case for interference by this Court under its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Balkrishna Pandey v. Commissioner 2002 (2) A.W.C.1139; Rayees Ahmad v. State of U.P. 2002 (2) A.W.C. 1184; and Krishna Autar v. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi 1990(2) A.W.C. 1458. I have perused the aforesaid decisions and find that the same are distinguishable on facts.
6. The administrative authorities are duty bound to take appropriate action in matter of grant of license and also its cancellation for the purpose of maintaining peace and harmony in the 'society. The assessment of the administrative authorities with regard to grant of license, or cancellation of license which has already been granted, should not be interfered with in usual course by this court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction, unless the same is so illegal or arbitrary so as to prick and conscience of the Court. In the present case, considering the conduct of the petitioner and his involvement in several cases (in some of which he may have been acquitted on technical grounds) and his continued association with anti social element as well as his involvement in cases of breach of peace on several occasions, clearly shows that he has rightly been assessed to be a person not fit to hold an arms license. It is a matter of common, knowledge that licenced firearms are seldom used for committing crime but. are more often used for threatening persons and thus committing breach of peace in society. The assessment of the administrative authorities in this regard, being a matter relating to the facts of the particular case, should be given its proper weightage and reversed only in cases where the facts glaringly speak otherwise.
7. In the present case, I do not find anything illegal or arbitrary in the assessment of the authorities below in directing cancellation of the arms licence of the petitioner. Thus, this writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No-order as to cost.