JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner was granted an arms license in the year 1991. A first information report was lodged against the petitioner on 16.7.1999. Thereafter the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and his arms license was placed under suspension. Challenging the said order the petitioner filed writ petition No. 49700 of 1999 which was allowed and the order placing the arms license of the petitioner under suspension was quashed.
2. In the criminal case registered against the petitioner, he was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge vide Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 665 of 1999. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 28.4.2001 the arms license of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Respondent No. 2. Challenging the said order the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, Respondent No. 1, by his order dated 26.8.2002. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri Jai Narain, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Despite time having been granted on several occasions, and more than three years having passed, no counter affidavit has been filed and thus this writ petition is being heard and disposed of at the admission stage itself.
4. It is clear from perusal of the impugned orders that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case which was registered against him. It is not the case of the respondents that there is any other criminaJ case pending against the petitioner or that the petitioner is a person of criminal antecedents. Merely because a case was registered against the petitioner and thereafter the witnesses did not turn up and the petitioner had been acquitted, cannot be a ground for cancellation of his arms license. The impugned orders are based only on the ground that a case was registered against the petitioner and since the witnesses had turned nostile and the petitioner had been acquitted, hence it would be detrimental to the interest of the public to permit the petitioner to hold the arms license. The said reasoning does not appear to be justified. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
5. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The orders dated 28.4.2001 and 26.8.2002 passed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively are quashed. No order as to cost.