A. B. SRIVASTAVA, J. As usual on behalf of the State respondents, no counter-affidavit has been filed in this case, despite several opportunities granted since March 1995, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of as the relevant facts are available on record. 2. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1> 59 stating that from the report of Police Station, Nagal, District Saharanpur it was evident that the petitioner was licencee of 315 bore riflle. There were registered at the Police Station two criminal cases, Crime No. 47/89 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 324, 504, 506, 302, IPC and case Crime No. 62 of 1991 under Section 364, IPC charge-sheet In which were submitted and cases pending In the Court, the petitioner is a person of criminal bent of mind who uses the weapon for threatening witnesses and committing crimes. He was called upon to show cause as to why his arm licence be not cancelled and the weapon surrendered. By his order dated 27-8-1992, the District Magistrate Saharanpur, rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner affirmed the notice cancelling the arms licence of the petitioner. The petitioners appeal was also dismissed by the Commis sioner Meerut Division by his order dated 20-12-1994 contained in Annexure 10. Aggrieved this petition. 3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel Shri Daya Shanfear Mishra, is that both the impugned orders having been passed on non-existent grounds are unsustainable. The first submission in this regard is that in both the criminal cases referred in the show cause notice, the petitioner was acquitted, as such the same could not be basis of cancellation. The fact of acquittal is not disputed rather is established from Annexure 5 a copy of the order dated 24-11-1992 of the A. D. M. Saharanpur showing that simultaneously with the petitioner, similar notice under Sec. 17 was issued to his co-accused Soran Singh involved both the cases. The accused in both cases having been acquitted, that notice was dis charged by the Additional District Magistrate. The case in respect of the petitioner being at par with that of Soran Singh, in this material aspect, there would be no justification in law to pass a different order. The accused in both cases having been acquitted, that notice was dis charged by the Additional District Magistrate. The case in respect of the petitioner being at par with that of Soran Singh, in this material aspect, there would be no justification in law to pass a different order. Even if at time of passing order by the District Magistrate, one of the cases had not been decided, when the appellate courts order was passed by the Commis sioner admittedly the other case had also ended in acquittal. In the appel late order, there has been a reference to two other cases against petitioner, First these were not the basis of the notice and secondly as per record this also ended in acquittal. 4. On behalf of the State, learned Standing Counsel has strenuously tried to support the order on the basis of the observations by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner that the petitioner was a man of criminal bent of mind and the witnesses in criminal cases turned hostile duo to his strong arm tactics. This however, to say the least, is not supported by any evidence. The effecting of judicial judgments, could not be avoided by making such sweeping observations. 5. There neither was issued any notice to the petitioner about any other criminal activities, nor on record there appears to have been led any proof of the same. The cancellation of an arm licence under Section 17, could be ordered only if any one of more of the grounds or situations enumerated in the said section exist and the licensing authority records in writing the reasons therefor, Records envisage existence of legally admissible material to prove the facts songht to constitute the ground for cancellation. It cannot be done on mere surmises or impression. The reason being, to maintain a balance between the interest of the society at large and the rights of an individual. 6. In the instant case, ground upon which the notice of revocation of licence was founded, not having been established, the order of revoca tion passed by the District Magistrate and the appellate order of the Commissioner, are unsustainable and deserve to be set aside. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders of the District Magistrate, Saharanpur and the Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut, are quashed. 8. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .