Ajit Singh Bains, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is an agriculturist and is a holder of gun licence for his personal safety and protection of his property. He lives in his Dera, which is one and a half miles away from his village Jalmana, Tehsil and District Karnal. Respondent No 2, vide order dated June 29, 1974, (copy Annexure 'P -1' to the petition, suspended the licence of the petitioner. It is against this order of respondent No. 2 that the present petition has been filed. The impugned order is in the following terms : - - It has been reported by the Tehsildar Karnal that you are an arm licence holder and incising people against land tax and Land Ceiling Act, therefore your conduct is against the interest of the State. Keeping such situation in view, I understand that it is not in the interest of administration that you may keep the arms with you, because you can misuse it at any time. As the Government machinery who have been assigned the duty of collecting the arrears can have danger from you, therefore, I suspend your arm license and hereby direct that you may deposit your arms with the concerned police station immediately after the receipt of this letter Besides this you are issued show cause notice that why your arm license may not be revoked or cancelled, you send your reply to my office within 15 days of the receipt of this letter, otherwise it would be considered that you have nothing to say regarding this and you will be proceeded ex -parte according to the rules. The reading of this order shows that the petitioner's pun licence was suspended on the grounds that according to the report of the Tehsildar, he was inciting people against land tax and Land Ceiling Act ; that his conduct was against the interest of the State ; and that it was not in the interest of the administration that be should keep the arms with him because it could be misused any time and could be a danger to the Government machinery, who were assigned the duty of collecting arrears. Admittedly no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. A licence can be suspended or revoked under section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act which reads as under : - - 17(3). The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence. - - (a)* * * (b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence ; or Reading of section 17(3)(b) shows that the licensing authority can cancel or revoke the licence if it is necessary to do so for the security of public peace or public safety. In Raj Kumar v. The State of Haryana, (1974)1 Cr. L.T. 276, it was held as under: - - Further a reading of ground No. 5 show that the detenu met some prominent under of Karnal and persuaded them to observe hartal on march 27, 1974. It is also alleged that he raised an alarm in their minds of loot and damage to their property by the violent students Similarly, ground No. 6 shows that he addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police fore -warning him of the impending events. These activity can hardly be said to have any relevance with public order. Both these grounds are of a serious nature and it cannot be said to what extent the mind of the detaining authority, which exercises administrative functions, has been affected by them. On this ground also, the order of detention deserves to be set a side. This was a case of a detenu and the allegation against him was that he met certain prominent traders, Government employees, workers of Electricity Board and also certain students, and exhorted them to observe Hartal, etc., and thus raised an alarm in their minds. It was in these circumstances that this Court has held that these activities can hardly be said to have any relevance with public order. In the present case it is mentioned in the impugned order that the Tehsildar had reported to respondent No. 2 that the petitioner was inciting the people against land tax and Land Ceiling Act Even if this allegation may be taken at its face value, it is hardly relevant for suspension or revocation of the licence. It is not known as to how the security of public peace or public safety is in danger. In this view of the matter I hold that respondent No. 2 could not pass the impugned order under section 17(3)(b) of the Act as the grounds mentioned therein do not come within the mischief of this section. No other point is urged. For the reasons recorded above, I allow this petition and quash the impugned order. The respondents are directed to restore the gun to the petitioner within a fortnight.;