Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 31.7.2009 passed by the Additional District Magistrate City, Ghaziabad by which he cancelled the fire arm licence of the petitioner and against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Mandal Meerut by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the only ground which has been taken by the cancelling authority is that there were criminal cases pending against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mere pendency of criminal cases is not a ground for the cancellation of a fire arm licence. He has further submitted that the State of Uttar Pradesh has come out with certain guidelines on 7.2.2018 and the fire arm licence could have been cancelled only after the cancelling authority found that any of the guidelines was violated. He has submitted that even though, the guidelines have been published in the year 2018, they were always known to the State Government and the authorities were to be guided by the guidelines which have now been published. The guidelines which have been published on 7.2.2018 and were read out by the learned counsel for the petitioner are being reproduced here as under:
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the guidelines clearly indicated that the mere pendency of criminal cases was not to be taken as a ground for the cancellation of a fire arm licence. He has submitted that in the instant case even the trial was not being pursued by the prosecution properly and, therefore, the trial had lingered since a very long time. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cancelling authority had nowhere given a finding that the possession of the fire arm with the petitioner was endangering public peace and public safety and therefore, he submits that the orders impugned be set aside.;