1. Heard Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. It is contended that merely on the ground that a large number of case are registered against petitioner, his firearm licence has been cancelled by District Magistrate, Unnao by order dated 01.10.2008 and the same has been confirmed by appellate authority by rejecting petitioner's appeal vide order dated 22.07.2009. The submission is that mere registration of criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of firearm licence. It is stated that it is incumbent upon licensing authority while passing an order under Section 17(3) of Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1959") to show that cancellation of firearm licence is necessary for maintaining public peace and safety, but there is no such ground in the entire order and merely on the basis of registration of criminal cases, firearm licence of petitioner has been cancelled.
3. I find force in the submission.
4. It is well settled that mere pendency of criminal case is not sufficient ground for passing an order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17 of the Act, 1959.
5. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or registration or pendency of criminal cases can be a ground for revocation of licence under Act, 1959 has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Mishra Vs. District Magistrate 1978 AWC 122 wherein it was held:
"District Magistrate has not recorded any finding that it was necessary to cancel the licence for the security of public peace or for public safety. All that he has done is to have referred to some applications and reports lodged against the petitioner. The mere fact that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner could not form basis for cancelling the licence. The order passed by the District Magistrate and that passed by the Commissioner cannot, therefore be upheld on the basis of anything contained in Section 17(3)(b) of the Act."
6. Similar view has been taken by this Court consistently in various subsequent decisions relying upon the Division Bench judgment in Sheo Prasad Mishra Vs. District Magistrate (supra).
7. In Surya Narain Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others 2015 (7) ADJ 510 this Court relying on Sheo Prasad Mishra Vs. District Magistrate (supra), said:
" ... in the case at hand, the District Magistrate, has not recorded any finding that it was necessary to cancel the licence for the security of public peace or for public safety. All that he has done is, have referred to some applications and reports lodged against the petitioner. The mere fact that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner could not form basis of cancelling the licence. The order passed by the District Magistrate and that passed by the Commissioner cannot, therefore, be upheld on the basis of anything contained in Section 17(3) of the Act."
8. In Ran Bahadur Singh Vs. Commissioner, Faizabad Division and others 2017 (120) ALR 622 again relying on Sheo Prasad Mishra Vs. District Magistrate (supra), it was held:
"The order passed by the District Magistrate therefore, cannot be upheld in absence of anything as contained in section 17(3) of the Act. The Appellate Court has also committed an error in not considering the facts in its correct prospective and has also failed to appreciate the grounds mentioned in section 17(3) of the Arms Act regarding revocation or for suspending a licence. It is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arm are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of license under section 17(3) of the Act."
9. In view of above exposition of law, the order cancelling firearm licence of petitioner as well as appellate order cannot be sustained.
10. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 01.10.2008 and 22.07.2009 are hereby set aside.
Dt. 26.07.2019 PS