BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the re­spondents. The fire arm licence granted, to the pe­titioner was cancelled by respondent No. 2 by his order dated 19.6.2006 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) on the ground of his in­volvement in Case Crime No. 705 of 2005 under section 304, IPC registered at P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar. Against the order dated 19.6.2006 was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal preferred by him under section 18 of the Arms Act be­fore respondent No. 1 which was num­bered as Appeal No. 190 of 2006 and dis­missed by him by his order dated 18.9.2006. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the above noted orders dated 19.6.2006 and 18.9.2006 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respec­tively.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that mere involvement in crimi­nal case neither affects public security nor public peace and hence the cancellation of petitioner's firearm licence by the respon­dent No. 2 on account of his being accused in Case Crime No. 705/2005 cannot be sustained. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Habib v. State of U.P., 2002 (44) ACC 783 (HC) He further submitted that the fail­ure of the appellate authority to redeem the illegally committed by respondent No. 2 has rendered the order of the authority also totally unsustainable in the eyes of law.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel stated that the impugned orders are based on facts and do not require any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Consti­tution of India. It is undisputed that the issue involved in the case was considered and decided by this Court in the case of HaWa (supra). In paragraph 3 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court held as under: - "The question as to whether mere in­volvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the li­cence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court reported in Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Divi­sion Bench relying upon the earlier decision reported in Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking the li­cence of fire arm has been set aside. The present impugned orders also suffer from the same infirmity as was pointed out by the Division Bench in the above mentioned cases. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the division Bench that these orders cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed." ;