- (1.) ONKARESHWAR Bhatt, J. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayer has been made for quashing the orders dated 14-10-1991 and 19-7-1994, passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 2 respectively.
(2.) NO counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents although sufficient time was given. Sri B. B. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State have been heard. According to the petitioner he is a licensee of fire-arm (Double Barrel Gun ). Due to local party politics the police submitted a report on 12-4-1988 recommending suspension of the licence of the petitioner. Notice was issued on 27-4-1989 to the petitioner, to which he filed objection. Respondent No. 3 by order dated 14-10-1991 cancelled the licence of the petitioner. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by respondent No. 2 on 19-7-1994.
(3.) THE provision for cancelling a licence is contained in Section 17 sub-section (3) of the Arms Act. A perusal thereof would show that the licensing authority can revoke a licence if : (i) he considers it necessary for the security of the public peace or public safety to suspend or revoke the licence, or (ii) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened. In the impugned order dated 14-10-1991 a reference has been made to the report of the police that case Crime No. 118/66 under Section 325 IPC, Crime No. 35/78 under Section 447 IPC, Crime No. 154/85 under Sections 147/353 IPC, C. R. No. 127/89 under Sections 323/506 IPC, Crime No. 110/87 under Section 379 IPC, N. C. R. No. 109/90 under Sections 323/504/427 IPC and N. C. R. No. 61/89 under Sections 504/506 I. P. C. are pending against the petitioner. In the memorandum of appeal, Annexure-2, the petitioner has taken a specific ground that he has not been convicted in any case. It is also stated that in Case No. 341/90, State v. Dharamvir Singh, under Section 379/427 I. P. C. he has been acquitted. In the impugned order dated 14-10-1991 the main thrust appears to be the pendency of criminal case against the petitioner, which has led to the cancellation of his licence. In the case of Sheo Prasad Mishra v. District Magistrate, Basti, reported in 1978 AWC 122, it has been held that mere fact that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner could not form basis for cancelling the licence. The District Magistrate in the impugned order dated 14-10-1991 has stated that cancellation of the licence of the petitioner appears necessary in the public interest. There is no finding that the revocation of licence was considered necessary for the security of the public peace or public safety. Public interest cannot be equated to the term 'for the security of the public peace or public safety. ' The case of Sheo Prasad (supra) has been relied in the case of Iftikhar Khan v. State of U. P. and others, reported in 2002 (1) JIC 501 (Allahabad) and it has been held that involvement in criminal case or pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground for revocation of the licence under the Arms Act. The ratio of Sheo Prasad case (supra) was again affirmed in the case of Hari Kant alias Raja v. State of U. P. and others, reported in 2002 (1) JIC 714 (Allahabad ).;