Anil Kumar, J.Heard Sri S.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 19.09.2006 passed by District Magistrate, Raebareli thereby cancelling the petitioners arms licence under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act and the order dated 27.01.2010 passed by Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow thereby dismissing the petitioners appeal.

3. Facts in brief of the present case are that the petitioner has been granted an Arms licence in the year 1987 in respect to DBBL gun having licence No. 2407.

4. On 28.12.2005, a report has been submitted against the petitioner by the concerned police station that the petitioner has misused his gun in an incidence and in respect to the said incidence a case has been registered against the petitioner (Case No. 65/2005 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 307, 436 I.P.C.

5. In view of the above said facts, the gun licence of the petitioner has been suspended and on 25.02.2006 and a show cause notice has been issued to him to submit his reply to which he submitted his reply.

6. On 19.09.2006, the matter has come up for hearing before the licensing authority/District Magistrate, Raebareli. On the said date, the petitioner was not present and on the basis of the material on record, the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority by means of the order dated 19.06.2006 has cancelled the licence of the petitioner.

7. Aggrieved by the said fact, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act (appeal No. 624/200-2010 (Thakur Prasad Mishra v. Government of Uttar Pradesh), dismissed by means of order dated 27.01.2010, hence present writ petition has been filed.

8. After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, the position which emerge out is that on the basis of the report of the police authority/Superintendent of Police Raebareli that the petitioner has used his gun in an incidence in which a criminal case No. 65-A/2005 has been initiated, initially the arms licence of the petitioner has been cancelled by the District Magistrate, Raebareli and thereafter the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed.

9. Further, while passing the impugned order also the licensing authority has not given any adequate finding that if petitioner holds the arms licence then the same shall be against the public peace or public safety.

10. "Public peace" or "public safety" do not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order public safety means safety of the public at large and not safety of few persons only and before passing of the order of cancellation of arm license as per Section 17(3) of the Act the Licensing Authority is under an obligation to apply his mind to the question as to whether there was eminent danger to public peace and safety involved in the case in view of the judgment given by this Court in the case of Ram Murli Madhukar v. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 (16) LCD 905], wherein it has been held that license can not be suspended or revoked on the ground of public interest (Jan-hit) merely on the registration of an F.I.R. and pending of a criminal case.

11. Further, this Court in the case of Habib v. State of U.P., 2002 ACC 783, held as under:-

"The question as to whether mere Involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra v. District Magistrate, Basti and Ors,. 1978 AWC 122 [LQ/AllHC/1978/7] , wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision in Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot, in any way, affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking the licence of fire arm has been set aside. The present impugned orders also suffer from the same infirmity as was pointed out by the Division Bench in the above-mentioned cases. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench that these orders cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed.

There is yet another reason that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has been acquitted from the aforesaid criminal case and at present there is neither any case pending, nor any conviction has been attributed to the petitioner, as is evident from Annexure SA-I and II to the supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to have the fire-arm licence. It is submitted by petitioners counsel that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges."

12. In view of the above said facts and the position of law as stated herein above, the impugned order of cancellation of the arms licence does not satisfy the conditions as provided under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, so the said orders are contrary to law, liable to be set aside.

13. In the instant matter, the impugned order dated 27.01.2010 passed by appellate authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner is non-speaking order and no specific reason has been assigned by the said authority that why the grounds taken by the petitioner are not sustainable while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. As it is well settled law that an order passed by an authority should be a reasoned one and the objection taken by a person should be dealt with because reasons are like a live wire which connects the mind of the decision making authority and the decision given by him and if this wire/link is broken i.e. to say no reasons are given in the impugned order then it will not be possible to know as what was going in the mind of the decision making authority on the basis of which he has come to the conclusion and passed the impugned order.

14. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the inscrutable face of the sphinx, it can be its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the later before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. In other worlds, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of the sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.

15. The said requirement is also in accordance with the principles of natural justice as a person against whom the impugned decision is taken should know that under what circumstances the same has been taken and as in the present case, the impugned appellate order is a non-speaking order and no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the official respondent No. 2 while passing the same, so the same is violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary in nature and cannot be sustained.

16. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 19.06.2006 passed by District Magistrate, Raebareli and 27.01.2010 passed by the appellate authority/Commissioner,Lucknow Division, Lucknow are set aside.

17. No order as to costs.