JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The fire-arm license granted to the petitioner was cancelled by respondent No. 2 by his order dated 19.6.2006 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) on the ground of his involvement in Case Crime No. 705 of 2005 under Section 304 IPC registered at P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar. Against the order dated 19.6.2006 was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal preferred by him under Section 18 of the Arms Act before respondent No. 1 which was numbered as Appeal No. 190 of 2006 and dismissed by him by his order dated 18.9.2006 . 3. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the above noted orders dated 19.6.2006 and 18.9.2006 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mere involvement in criminal case neither affects public security nor public peace and hence the cancellation of petitioner’s fire-arm licence by the respondent No. 2 on account of his being accused in Case Crime No. 705/2005 cannot be sustained. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Habib v. State of U.P. (HC), 2002 (44) ACC 783. 6. He further submitted that the failure of the appellate authority to redeem the illegally committed by respondent No. 2 has rendered the order of the authority also totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Learned Standing Counsel stated that the impugned orders are based on facts and do not require any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is undisputed that the issue involved in the case was considered and decided by this Court in the case of Habib (supra). 7. Learned Standing Counsel stated that the impugned orders are based on facts and do not require any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is undisputed that the issue involved in the case was considered and decided by this Court in the case of Habib (supra). In paragraph 3 of the aforesaid judgement, this Court 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 reported in Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision reported in Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, 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.” 9. This Court considered the same issue in the case of Bhagat Singh v. State of U.P., 2004 (I) 339. This Court in paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment observed herein under : “It is settled law that the licence cannot be cancelled or revoked on allegation of mere involvement of the licence holder in a criminal case. The writ petition is pending since 1985. More than 18 years have passed since the lodging of the criminal case under Sections 107/116 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in which he has been acquitted. There is no other criminal case pending against the petitioner. The licence of the petitioner was cancelled only on the ground of pendency of the criminal case alleging his involvement, without giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard. This was in violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.” 10. There is no other criminal case pending against the petitioner. The licence of the petitioner was cancelled only on the ground of pendency of the criminal case alleging his involvement, without giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard. This was in violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.” 10. Since the facts of the case are not disputed and the legal position being settled that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot affect the public security or public peace, the cancellation of the petitioner’s fire-arm licence on the ground of his involvement in criminal case cannot be sustained. The appellate authority has also committed the same error while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the licensing authority. 11. In this view of the matter, if there is nothing else, which may disentitle the petitioner for renewal of his fire-arm licence, the respondents are directed to renew the fire-arm licence of the petitioner. The writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The orders dated 19.6.2006 and 18.9.2006 Annexures-6 and 8 to the writ petition, respectively passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 1 are quashed subject to the aforesaid observation. ————