JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 22.12.2004, passed by the opposite party No. 2 (District Magistrate, Pratapgarh) by which his arm license for DBBL gun has been cancelled. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.11.2010, passed by the opposite party No. 1 (Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad) whereby appeal preferred by him against the order dated 22.12.2004, has been dismissed. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner who is associated with Bhartiya Janta Party, had been holder of DBBL gun license No. 182/2003, issued by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh. As soon as petitioner got license, his political rival Sri I. P. Saroj, an associate of Bahujan Samaj Party lodged a false FIR at case crime No. 149 of 2003, under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Since in the aforesaid case crime, the allegations also included misuse of a fire-arm, a separate case crime No. 150 of 2003 under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against the petitioner. Another case at crime No. 55 of 2004 under Section 2/3 Goonda Act was also registered against him. The local police forwarded its report to the Superintendent of Police and in response thereof the Superintendent of Police wrote a letter dated 14.10.2004 to the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh mentioning therein the lodging of the aforesaid criminal cases against the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Pratapgarh issued show-cause notice to the petitioner on 18.10.2004 (Annexure 3) to which he submitted his reply on 8.12.2004 (Annexure 4) mentioning therein that he has been falsely implicated in the said criminal cases and, as such, his arm license did not deserve cancellation. The District Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 22.12.2004 thereby cancelling the arm license of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a person of criminal nature as above mentioned criminal cases are pending against him. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner (Opposite Party No. 1) on 6.1.2005 which was dismissed by means of order dated 25.11.2010 (Annexure 2). 4. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner (Opposite Party No. 1) on 6.1.2005 which was dismissed by means of order dated 25.11.2010 (Annexure 2). 4. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that so far as criminal cases pending against the petitioner are concerned, petitioner has been acquitted in case crime No. 149 of 2003, under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kandhai, district Pratapgarh by means of judgment and order dated 23.11.2010 (Annexure 7), passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh. Another case of Goonda Act was withdrawn by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh himself vide order dated 11.10.2004 (Annexure 8), observing therein that on the basis of a single case pending against him, it would not be appropriate to take any action against the petitioner under Goonda Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is not even a single criminal against the petitioner that he had misused his fire-arm license. Petitioner’s arm license cannot be cancelled on the basis of false implication in any case. 6. The issue under consideration is as to whether only on account of pendency of criminal cases, arm license of the petitioner can be cancelled ? 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, has placed reliance upon a decision in Rajendra Singh v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, 2011 (29) LCD 1041; Rama Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (29) LCD 1045 and Hiramani Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (29) LCD 829 and in this background submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arms is not a sufficient ground for revocation or suspending a fire-arm license. 8. Learned Additional C.S.C. while opposing the writ petition, submitted that the petitioner’s arm license was not cancelled on the basis of his political rivalry, rather it was cancelled on the basis of pendency of criminal cases against him. He further submitted that petitioner’s arm license was cancelled after following due procedure in public interest and public security. Petitioner’s appeal was also dismissed by the Commissioner by passing speaking and reasoned order and there is no legal infirmity in the said order. As such, writ petition, filed by the petitioner, deserves to be dismissed. 9. He further submitted that petitioner’s arm license was cancelled after following due procedure in public interest and public security. Petitioner’s appeal was also dismissed by the Commissioner by passing speaking and reasoned order and there is no legal infirmity in the said order. As such, writ petition, filed by the petitioner, deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 10. From perusal of the impugned order dated 22.12.2004, passed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh it reveals that the petitioner’s arm license was revoked under Section 17 (3) of Arms Act, on the ground of pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner in case crime No. 149 of 2003, under Sections 452, 323,504, 506 I.P.C. The allegations have been made against the petitioner that he entered into house of Sri I.P. Saroj and fired from a Katta. There were two more cases against the petitioner, one was of case crime No. 150 of 2013 and other was of case crime No. 55 of 2004. 11. So far as pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner is concerned, petitioner has been acquitted in case crime No. 149 of 2003, under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kandhai, district Pratapgarh vide judgment and order dated 23.11.2010 (Annexure 7), passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh. So far as case of Goonda Act imposed against the petitioner, the District Magistrate himself dropped the proceedings vide order dated 11.10.2004 (Annexure 8), observing therein that on the basis of pendency of a single case, it would not be appropriate to take any action against the petitioner under Goonda Act. Now, only one case relating to case crime No. 150 of 2003, under Section 25 Arms Act remains pending against the petitioner. 12. Perusal of the record further reveals that on account of pendency of criminal cases the District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a person of criminal nature and is involved in criminal activities. However, mere involvement in a criminal case cannot, in any way, affect the public security or public interest. 13. In the case of Rama Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (29) LCD 1045, it has been held that a license cannot be refused/suspended/cancelled merely because there is an ordinary breach of law and order. 14. However, mere involvement in a criminal case cannot, in any way, affect the public security or public interest. 13. In the case of Rama Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (29) LCD 1045, it has been held that a license cannot be refused/suspended/cancelled merely because there is an ordinary breach of law and order. 14. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are being reproduced herein under: 8. Relying upon Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. District Magistrate Almora; AIR 1993 All 291 , learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has held in clear words that a licence cannot be refused/suspended/cancelled merely because there is an ordinary breach of law and order. 9.’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. 10. In Ram Murli Madhukar v. District Magistrate, Sitapur, [1998(16) LCD 905], this Court has held that licence cannot be suspended or revoked on the ground of public interest (Janhit). 11. 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 in Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin v. 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 v. State of U.P., 2002 ACC 783, Ram Sanehi v. Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another. 15. The law propounded in the said decisions has been subsequently followed in Habib v. State of U.P., 2002 ACC 783, Ram Sanehi v. Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another. 15. Further, in the case of Hiramani Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (29) LCD 829, it has been held that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of fire-arm license. The relevant para 8 reads as under: 8. This Court in the case of Ashok Rao v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (68) accused applicants. 441 while considering the authority to be exercised under Section 17 of the Indian Arms Act has taken the view that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be ground for cancellation of fire-arm license unless and until finding is returned by the authority concerned that possession of fire-arm has the tendency of threatening public peace and public safety. 16. In the case of Rajendra Singh v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and others, 2011 (29) LCD 1041 ‘Public Peace’ or ‘Public Safety’ has been defined. The relevant paras 6 and 7 read as under: 6. ‘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. 7. 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 in Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin v. 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 v. State of U.P., 2002 ACC 783. 17. In view of the above, Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.12.2004, passed by the opposite party No. 2 (District Magistrate, Pratapgarh) is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh to re-examine the issue and take a decision in accordance with law within period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ————