B.K.Narayana, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage. Brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was granted a fire arm licence after due enquiry in the year 2001. A notice was issued to the petitioner by District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 3 on 21.6.2006 for showing cause as to why his arm licence be not cancelled on the ground of his involvement in Case Crime No. 243 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353 and 504, I.P.C. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 14.7.2006, whereafter the respondent No. 3 by his order dated 4.8.2006, suspended the petitioner's fire arm licence illegally on the ground of petitioner's involvement in Case Crime No. 243 of 2006 and there being apprehension of misuse of his fire arm by the petitioner. The said order further provided that the petitioner's fire arm licence shall stand automatically cancelled in the event of petitioner's conviction in the criminal case pending against him. Aggrieved from the order dated 4.8.2006, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the respondent No. 2 which was registered as Appeal No. 30 of 2007 and dismissed by him by his order dated 13.8.2007. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4.8.2006 (Annexure-3 to this writ petition) and the order dated 13.8.2007 (Annexure-2 to this writ petition) passed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 2, respectively.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that a licence granted under the Arms Act, cannot be cancelled on the grounds of mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal trial and apprehension of misuse of fire arm by the licensee as mere involvement in a criminal case or apprehension of misuse of fire arm by a licensee cannot in any way affect public security or public interest. He further submitted that even in the first information report on the basis of which Case Crime No. 204 of 2005 was registered against the petitioner there is no allegation of any use of his fire arm by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the appellate authority also fell into same error as the licensing authority by dismissing the petitioner's appeal without properly appreciating the settled legal position on the issue and also the grounds on which the petitioner had challenged the validity of the order of the licensing authority before him.;