Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) BY means of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 20.8.2008 passed by the Divisional Com missioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi by which he has rejected the appeal filed against the order of the District Magistrate, Jaunpur dated 31.3.2008 by which he has cancelled the arm licence of the petitioner. The petitioner had D.B.B.L Gun No. 2578 B.K. licence No. 278 and revolver No. F 7842-04, licence No. 498. The afore said two licences of the petitioner have been cancelled merely on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged in the year 1994 in case crime No. 94A/94 under sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 504, 506 and 307 I.P.C. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 7.3.2006 to show cause as to why both the licences may not be cancelled. The petitioner filed reply on 18.8.2006. However, by order dated 31.3.2008 both licences have been cancelled. The District Magistrate has observed that in the aforesaid F.I.R. though final report has been submitted by the po lice but the Court below has not taken cognizance of such report and summon was issued against which the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court in which the proceeding before the Court be low has been stayed. On these facts it has been observed that in the interest of public security it could not be proper to continue the arm licence of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. By the impugned order appeal has been dismissed on the same ground.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cancellation of the arm licences after 12 years from the date of lodging of the F.I.R. is wholly unjustified. He submitted that perusal of the F.I.R. also reveals that vague allegations have been made without any supporting evidence. He further submitted that there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner has ever misused the arms for any illegal activ ity. Mere pendency of the case before the Court below is not sufficient to cancel the licence of the petitioner unless a case is made out against the petitioner about his conduct, which may result to misuse of the arms. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the appellate authority as well as the order of the District Magistrate.;