JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner was granted an arms licence in the year 1995 which was thereafter renewed for a period of three years on 29.12.1997. An incident is said to have been taken place on 18.1.1998 in which a first information report was registered as case crime No. 15 of 1998, Police Station Cantonment, Lucknow under Sections 147/148/149/302 I.P.C. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was not named in the said first information report. However, subsequently on 16.7.1998, after about six months, the informant disclosed the name of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was also involved in the said incident. In pursuance thereof, on 18.8.1999 the Police Inspector submitted a report against the petitioner for cancellation of his arms license. The Circle Officer, Sadar, Basti also accepted and forwarded the report of the police inspector on 25.8.1999. Consequently on 18.9.1999 a notice under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 was issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Basti to show cause as to why his arms licence be not cancelled. Interestingly, while the show cause notice was pending, the arms licence of the petitioner was renewed for another period of three years vide order dated 27.12.2000. After the submission of the reply by the petitioner to the show cause notice, the arms licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the licensing authority, i.e. District Magistrate, Basti vide order dated 22.11.2002 on the ground that the petitioner has violated the condition of the licence and that it would not be in public interest to allow the petitioner to continue with the licence as it was apprehended that the petitioner may commit serious crime in future. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the licensing authority was dismissed by the Commissioner, Basti Division, Basti vide order dated 6.8.2003. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 22.11.2002 and 6.8.2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Basti and the Commissioner, Basti Division Basti respectively, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri Siddharth Singh, 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 consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
3. It is note-worthy that the petitioner was not initially married in the first information report. His involvement came only after six months, when the informant disclosed the petitioner's name also as to have been involved in the said incident. It is also pertinent to note that although a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why his licence should not be cancelled, but still during the pendency of the said notice the licensing authority had renewed his licence on 27.12.2000. Further on 11.3.2004 the petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal case by the trial court. Copies of such judgments have been filed as Annexure nos. A and B to the rejoinder affidavit.
4. In the aforesaid facts, since the petitioner was not found to have been involved in the said incident on the basis of which the his arms licence has been cancelled, and there being no other case registered against the petitioner or the petitioner having any criminal antecedents, the cancellation of his arms licence was not justified and so as the order passed in appeal; which are both liable to be quashed.
5. Accordingly, the orders dated 22.11.2002 and 6.8.2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Basti as well as the Commissioner, Basti Division, Basti are hereby quashed.
6. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.