TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) THE licence of the petitioner was suspended and the petitioner was directed to deposit the weapon at the police station. By the im­pugned order, the authority also issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why his licence should not be revoked. The pe­titioner, being aggrieved by the said order suspending his arms licence, has ap­proached the Writ Court.
(2.) FOR facility, the factual averments as contained in Writ Petition No. 48617 of 2008 is being considered. In this writ peti­tion, the reason for suspension of the arms licence is that the petitioner was a resident of Chitrakoot but obtained the arms licence from Allahabad and, that three criminal cases were filed against the petitioner. Further, the antecedent of the petitioner was such that the authorities was of the opinion that he should not be allowed to keep the weapon as he instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the citizens of that area. Further, the authorities concluded that there was likelihood of the misuse of the weapon and that public peace and safety would be jeopardized if the peti­tioner was allowed to keep the weapon and accordingly issued the suspension order. I have heard Sri A. Chaturvedi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and Sri Amit Misra, the learned Counsel in the connected writ petition and the learned Standing Counsel for the re­spondents.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the peti­tioner raised two submissions, namely, that the licence of the petitioner could not be suspended pending inquiry into the revo­cation of the arms licence. Further, the sus­pension of the arms licence could not re­main suspended for an indefinite period. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has placed reliance upon various judgments which will be referred hereinaf­ter.;