Rajiv Sharma,J.:- Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and the order dated 1.7.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi, as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, to the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted arms licence. On the basis of FIR relating to case crime No. 91 of 2002 under Section 304-A IPC lodged against the petitioner, a show cause notice was issued by the District Magistrate, Hardoi as to why the licence of the petitioner shall not be cancelled, to which the petitioner tendered his reply but without considering the reply of the petitioner, the District Magistrate, vide order dated 1.7.2005, cancelled the licence of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, who, vide order dated 13.12.2006, dismissed the appeal. Hence the instant writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole reason for revoking the licence vide order dated 1.7.2005 is that a case crime no. 91 of 2002, under Sections 304-A IPC was lodged against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid case by the trial Court and as such, the grounds which are mentioned in Section 17(3) of the Arms Act are not at all attracted in the case of the petitioner and the petitioner has not contravened any of the conditions as enumerated in the licence and as such the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate as also the order passed by the Appellate Authority is illegal and legally not sustainable. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the order cancelling the licence of the petitioner was passed by the District Magistrate in public interest and it was duly communicated by the Officer Incharge (Arms) to the petitioner. According to him, the competent authority has considered all aspect of the matters including the lodging the FIR under the major offences of the India Penal Code. ?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. According to him, the competent authority has considered all aspect of the matters including the lodging the FIR under the major offences of the India Penal Code. ?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. Before passing of the order in exercise of power conferred under 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 Ram Murli Madhukar Vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998(16) LCD 905], this Court has held that licence can not be suspended or revoked on the ground of public interest (Jan-hit) It is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arms act are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17 (3) of the Act. 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 Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The District Magistrate, Basti & others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest. The law propounded in the said decisions has been subsequently followed in Habib Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2002 ACC 783. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the case laws, referred to above, I am of the view that the Appellate Court has committed an error in not considering the facts in correct prospective and has also failed to appreciate the grounds mentioned in Section 17(3) of the Arms Act regarding revocation or for suspending a licence. The order passed by the Appellate Authority can not be legally sustained. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and the order dated 1.7.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, to the writ petition, are hereby quashed. The order passed by the Appellate Authority can not be legally sustained. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and the order dated 1.7.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, to the writ petition, are hereby quashed. Opposite parties are directed to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously, say, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.