JUDGMENT 1. - By order dated 24th April, 2008; the District Magistrate, Alwar, declined the application of the petitioner instituted on 18th December, 2008, for renewal of the arms license of gun (12 bore) No.2651-Y-77. The Appellate Authority also declined the appeal by order dated 30th September, 2014; of which the petitioner is aggrieved of, and therefore, has instituted the present writ application praying for the following relief(s): "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Writ Petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 24.04.2008 passed by the respondent District Collector & District Magistrate, Alwar and order dated 30.09.2014 passed by Divisional Commissioner Jaipur, division Jaipur in Arms Appeal No. 216/2013 titled as Rahmuddin v. District Collector & District Magistrate, Alwar and further pleased to direct to respondent for renewal of Arms license of the petitioner appellant in the larger interest of justice. Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner." 2. Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the petitioner, a farmer, resident of District Alwar, was accorded arms license for gun (12 bore) since 1987, for his safety and protection from the wild animals. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that the license was renewed from time to time upto 31st December, 2007. The application for renewal submitted on 18th December, 2008 to the District Magistrate, Alwar, was declined by a cryptic order, on a cyclostyled format, wherein blanks have been filled up. Further, the reasons detailed out for declining the renewal of arms license is registration of crime No.252 of 2002, for offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC), that was pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction and the recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police, Alwar. 3. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the order declining, renewal of the arms license was made on 28th April, 2008, but the impugned order was never communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was under the impression that the application for renewal was pending for at the relevant time, elections were scheduled to be held. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the order declining, renewal of the arms license was made on 28th April, 2008, but the impugned order was never communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was under the impression that the application for renewal was pending for at the relevant time, elections were scheduled to be held. The petitioner did not receive any response even after elections were concluded. However, when he approached the concerned Police Station for release of the gun that was deposited, whereupon he was informed on 26th January, 2013, that his application for renewal of the arms license was declined on 24th April, 2008. Accordingly, an application was moved to obtain a certified copy of the impugned order dated 24th April, 2008, on 29th January, 2013, which was made available to the petitioner on 4th February, 2013. The appeal instituted under Section 18 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (for short "the Act of 1959"), has also been declined by the Appellate Authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application asserted that the impugned order made by the District Magistrate, Alwar, dated 24th April, 2008, is bad in the eye of law for it has been made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, violation of the principles of natural justice is apparent on the face of record. It is further contended that mere registration of Crime No.252/2002 under Section 447 of IPC, was not a sufficient and reasonable ground for the competent authority to decline renewal of the arms license and that too, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. For the copy of the impugned order dated 24th April, 2008, was not communicated to the petitioner, he could not avail of the remedy of appeal immediately thereafter. However, so soon the petitioner learnt about the impugned order dated 24th April, 2008, he obtained a certified copy of the same and instituted an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority without taking into consideration the factual matrix as well as the fact that the petitioner has already acquitted in Crime No.252/2002, declined the appeal in an arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable manner. Reference has been made to the order dated 30th May, 2012 (Annexure-4), which reflects that the petitioner was acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Appellate Authority without taking into consideration the factual matrix as well as the fact that the petitioner has already acquitted in Crime No.252/2002, declined the appeal in an arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable manner. Reference has been made to the order dated 30th May, 2012 (Annexure-4), which reflects that the petitioner was acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction. 6. In response to the notice of the writ application, the State-respondent has filed its counter affidavit pleading that the competent authority taking note of Crime No.252/2002, that was registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 447 IPC, so also the report from the concerned Superintendent of Police and in the light of Clause 5.2.4 of the Guidelines issued by the Principal Secretary Home, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide Circular No. P.1(13) Home-9/2006 dated 16th December, 2006, rightly declined the application for renewal. 7. Mr. Dharmendra Pareek, Additional Government Counsel, appearing for the State-respondent submits that the petitioner obtained the arms license for safety and protection from wild animals whereas the petitioner did not contact the concerned authority for renewal of the arms license for a sufficiently long period until 26th January, 2013, therefore, a reasonable presumption can be raised that the petitioner was not in need of the arms for safety and protection from wild animals. Moreover, agriculturists of the area did not make any such request, therefore, the action of the authorities in declining the application for renewal of the arms license cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. Furthermore, registration of Crime No.252/2002, which was pending adjudication before the competent court, further justified the action of the State respondent in declining the application. It is also asserted that since Crime No. 252/2002, was registered against the petitioner, therefore, there was every possibility of misuse of arms in the event the renewal application was granted. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the relevant materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar. 9. Indisputably, the petitioner was accorded arms license for the gun involved herein in the year 1987, by the competent authority. The licence was renewed from time to time upto 31st December, 2007. 9. Indisputably, the petitioner was accorded arms license for the gun involved herein in the year 1987, by the competent authority. The licence was renewed from time to time upto 31st December, 2007. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner deposited the gun with the concerned Police Station in the face of the elections in the year 2008. 10. The fact that the impugned order declining the application for renewal dated 24th April, 2008, was made by the District Magistrate, Alwar, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is also not in dispute. 11. It is surprising that even after declining the application of the petitioner dated 18th December, 2008, for renewal of the arms license; a copy of the impugned order dated 24th April, 2008, was not served upon him. The petitioner having learnt about the factum of the rejection of his application for renewal while he had visited the concerned Police Station to collect his gun after the elections in the year 2013; he learnt about the impugned order declining his renewal application. 12. An appeal was instituted under Section 18 of the Act of 1959. However, the Appellate Authority declined the appeal of the petitioner in-different to the factual matrix that even in Crime No.252/2002; the petitioner was acquitted by the competent court vide order dated 30th May, 2012. This is no material available on record to substantiate the fact that the petitioner was ever afforded any opportunity of hearing on the recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police for not to grant the application of the petitioner for renewal of the arms license. 13. In the case of Shiv Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2013 (2) WLC (Raj.) 393 a Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with the somewhat similar controversy relying upon the opinion of the Division Bench in the case of Khem Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2005 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 907 observed that Section 17(3) of the Act of 1959, makes it obligatory on the licensing authority to exercise the power with great circumspection. The satisfaction of the authority has to be objective and must be based upon relevant material. Mere fact that some reports have been lodged against the licence holder is not sufficient for cancelling of licence. The satisfaction of the authority has to be objective and must be based upon relevant material. Mere fact that some reports have been lodged against the licence holder is not sufficient for cancelling of licence. A licence can be revoked under Section 17(3)(b) of the Act of 1959, if the licensing authority deem it necessary for the security of public peace and public safety. 14. In the instant case at hand, there is no material available on record to conclude that the registration of Crime No.252/2002, against the petitioner that was pending adjudication before the competent court, in any manner was prejudicial to public peace or public safety and it was necessary to secure the same to decline the application for grant of renewal. Mere pendency of the criminal case would not be a sufficient ground for revocation or declining renewal of arms license for such an action must be necessary for the purpose of security of public peace or public safety. In absence of any satisfaction recorded by the competent authority, on the basis of the factual matrix and materials available on record, exercise of power under Section 17 of the Act of 1959, would be illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was not even furnished a copy of the impugned order declining his application for renewal of the arms license, which was made in flagrant violation of cardinal principles of natural justice. The Appellate Authority too failed to take note of these aspects of the matters. 15. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, the writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed. 16. In the result, the impugned orders dated 24th April, 2008 and 30th September, 2014, are hereby quashed and set aside. The District Collector & District Magistrate, Alwar, is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner for renewal of arms license afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within four weeks from the date, a certified copy of this order is presented. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner would be entitled to cost, which is quantified as Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only).Petition Allowed. *******