Anil Kumar, J.

Head Sri R.B.S. Rathour, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel and perused the record.

Petitioner as per the provisions as provided under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been granted a licence for DBBL gun and licence No. is 272/97.

On 27.04.1999, an F.I.R. under Section 506 IPC has been lodged against the petitioner and some other persons by Sri Rakesh Singh Rana, accordingly a Criminal Case No.120 A of 1999 has been registered against him.

Keeping in view the said facts, a recommendation has been made by the police authorities of District Raebareli for suspension of the arms licence of the petitioner in respect of DBBL Gun No. 1664. Accordingly, the impugned order/show cause notice dated 17.06.1999 has been issued to him suspending his arms licence by the O.P. No. 3/Prabhari Adhikari (Arms), Raebareli, petitioner was directed to file his reply why the same be not cancelled.

Sri R.B.S. Rathour, learned counsel for petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that the same is in contravention to the provisions of Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act as well as the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sahab Singh Vs. Commissioner Agra Region, Agara and others, 2006 (24) LCD 374, in the case of Mulayam Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2013 (80) ACC 786 and in the case of Raj Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P., 2013 (80) ACC 231.

He further submits that in identical circumstances, this Court has passed an order dated 28.02.2013 in Writ Petition No. 1721 (MS) of 1999, which on reproduction reads as under:

"Heard Sri Ankit Singh holding brief of Sri R. B. S. Rathaur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. P. S. Chauhan, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner was having an arm license No.271 for Single Barrel Gun, P.S. Kheeron, District Raibareily. The petitioner was involved in a criminal case No.120A/1999 under section 506 IPC. So, by the impugned order dated 17.06.1999, the license was suspended. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, where this Court on 29.06.1999 has stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 17.06.1999.

Learned counsel for the petitioner informed the court that on the basis of the interim order, the petitioner is continuing with the license. Criminal Case is also over.

When it is so, then the present petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order dated 29.06.1999.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly."

Accordingly, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order/show cause notice in the present writ petition is liable to be set aside.

Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned State counsel while defending the impugned order submits that as against the petitioner and some other persons an F.I.R. under Section 506 IPC has been lodged on 27.04.1999 by Sri Rakesh Singh Rana, accordingly a Criminal Case No.120 A of 1999 has been registered against him. So, in order to maintain law and order situation, the police authorities has recommended the cancellation of arms licence, the order date 17.06.1999 has been issued suspending the petitioners arms licence and he was required to submit his reply why the same may not be cancelled.

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, provides for variation, suspension and revocation.

And Section 17(3) reads as under:

Section 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) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act ; or

(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

(c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it ; or

(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened ; or

(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under subsection (1) requiring hiseemingly formed an opinion that it was necessary for the security of the public peace and public safetym to deliver up the licence....."

The said section has come up for judicial scrutiny in the case of C.P. Sahu Vs. State, 1984 AWC 145; Kailashnath Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1985 AWC 493 [LQ/AllHC/1985/288 ;] ">1985 AWC 493 [LQ/AllHC/1985/288 ;] [LQ/AllHC/1985/288 ;] ; Balram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1988 AWC 14814; Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1995 ACJ 200 [LQ/RajHC/1994/540] and as per the judicial provocation given, there on the following points:

(a) the licensing authority has no power to suspend the arms licence pending enquiry into its cancellation/suspension nor has it the power to suspend the licence for indefinite period;

(b) licensing authority has the power to suspend for specified period a firearm licence on being satisfied as to existence of all or any of the conditions visualised by clauses (a) to (e) of subsection (3) of Section 17 of the Act sans any prior opportunity of hearing being given to the licence holder but such order of suspension shall not attain finality until the aggrieved party has been heard and his objections, if any, adjudicated. In other words, suspension of arms licence for specified period or its revocation under Section 17(3) of the Act, if ordered without affording opportunity of hearing, would endure in suspended animation until the aggrieved party has been heard by the licensing authority and his objections, if any, are adjudicated:

(c) the licensing authority can also for the furtherance of the immediate remedial actions, exercise in facts and circumstances of a given case, an incidental power of directing the licence holder to surrender his licence until objections have been decided ; and

(d) suspension under Section 17(3) of the Act must be for definite period to be specified in the order by the licensing authority.

Further, this Court in the case of Sahab Singh Vs. Commissioner Agra Region, Agara and others (supra), in paragraph No. 3 held as under:

"The submission of the petitioner is That merely because of pendency of a criminal case, the arms licence of the petitioner cannot be cancelled. in support of the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court in the case of Hausla Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Ishwar @ Bhuri v. State of U.P. . It has further been submitted that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the cases of Balaram Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. 1985 A.W.C. 493 as well as the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sadri Ram v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and Ors., the arms licence of the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension pending enquiry."

In the case of Mulayam Singh (supra), in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 held as under:

"Para No. 11 The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of licence under the Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1978 AWC, 122 (Sheo Prasad Mishra vs. District Magistrate). The division Bench relied upon the earlier decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Masi Uddin vs. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573 wherein it has been held:

"A licence may be cancelled, interalia, on the ground that it is "necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety, to do so. The District Magistrate has not recorded a finding that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to revoke the licence. The mere existence of enmity between a licencee and another person would not establish the "necessary" connection with security of the public peace or public safety.

In the case before us also the District Magistrate has not recorded any finding that it was necessary to cancel the licence for the security of public peace or for public safety. All that he has done is to have referred to some applications and reports lodged against the petitioner. The mere fact that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner could not form basis for cancelling the licence. The order passed by the District Magistrate and that passed by the Commissioner cannot, therefore, be upheld on the basis of anything contained in Section 17(3)(b) of the Act."

Para No. 12 Similar view has been taken by this Court in various decisions relying upon the Division Bench judgment passed in Sheo Prasad Mishra( supra). There is no doubt that the District Magistrate and the Commissioner i.e. administrative authorities are bound to take appropriate action in the matter of grant of licence and also its cancellation for the purpose of maintaining peace and harmony in the society. The assessment of administrative authorities with regard to grant or cancellation of licence should not be interfered in usual course by the Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction unless there is illegality or arbitrariness."

In the case of Raj Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. (Supra), this Court in paragraph No. 3 held as under:

"The ground for issue of showcause notice, suspension and ultimately cancellation of the licence is that one and preceisely one criminal case was registered against the petitioner. The District Magistrate has also held that the petitioner has been enlarged on bail. He has gone further to observe that if the licence remained intact, the petitioner, may disturb public peace and tranquility. The same findings have been given by the Commissioner, Unmindful of the fact that this Court is repeating the law of the land, but the deaf ears of the administrative officers do not ready to succumb the law of the land. The settled law is that mere involvement in a criminal case without any finding that involvement in such criminal case shall be detrimental to public peace and tranquility shall not create the ground for the cancellation of Armed Licence. In Ram Suchi vs. Commissioner, Devipatan Division reported in 2004 (22) LCD 1643, it was held that this law was relied upon in Balram Singh vs. State of UP 2006 (24) LCD 1359. Mere apprehension without substance is simply an opinion which has no legs to stand. Personal whims are not allowed to be reflected while acting as a public servant. "

Further, in the case of C.P. Sahu (Supra), this Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act held as under:

"The object of the enquiry that a licensing authority may, while proceeding to consider the question as to whether or not an arms licence should be revoked or suspended, like to make, clearly is to enable the licensing authority to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the facts stated in clauses (a! to (e) of Section 17(3) exist and as already explained, it is not obliged to before considering that a case for revocation/suspension of licence has been made out, associate the licensee in such enquiry, in this view of the matter it can safely be taken that where a licensing authority embarks upon such an enquiry it is, till then not convinced about existence of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 17(3), of the Act. So long as it is not so convinced no case to make an order either revoking or suspending an arms licence as contemplated by the section will be made out."

In the instant case, the O.P. No. 3/Prabhari Adhikari (Arms), Raebareli seemingly formed an opinion that it was necessary for the security of the public peace and public safety on the basis of a recommendation of police authority that an F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner under Section 506 I.P.C. a Criminal Case has been initiated, accordingly, issued the impugned order/show cause notice dated 17.06.1999, thus the same does not satisfy the mandatory conditions as provided under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 under which an arms licence can be suspended.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order/show cause notice dated 17.06.1999 passed by O.P. No. 3 is set aside and the Licensing Authority is at liberty to proceed afresh for cancellation of the arms licence of the petitioner in accordance with law, if he so advised.

With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed.