JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This writ petition is directed against order dated 13.8.12 of Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner u/s 18 of Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act'), against the order dated 19.4.12 of the District Magistrate, Barmer, refusing to renew the arms license issued in his favour and cancelling the same, stands dismissed. 2. The petitioner was granted arms license bearing no.2515/85 by the District Magistrate, Barmer for a Bore Rifle Mojer, AG. The license was renewed from time to time which was valid upto 2009. On 20.12.09, the petitioner applied for further renewal of the license by submitting an application in prescribed form along with an affidavit before the District Magistrate, Barmer. The SHO, Police Station, Choutan and Circle Inspector, Choutan Circle, vide their letter dated 13.5.10 conveyed their "No Objection" to the Superintendent of Police, Barmer. However, the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, on account of the criminal cases registered against the petitioner in past, recommended not to renew the license. Relying upon the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, keeping in view the criminal record of the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Barmer, refused to renew the license and cancelled the same vide order dated 19.4.12. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act, stands dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the criminal cases barring one, were registered upto the year 1999. It is submitted that the criminal case registered against the petitioner on 11.11.09 is only for the petty offences under Sections 341, 323 & 447 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that the license was issued in the year 1985, which was renewed from time to time upto the year 2009, and thus the criminal cases alleged to have been registered against the petitioner were obviously considered while granting last renewal in the year 2006. Learned counsel submitted that it is not the case against the petitioner he has ever misused the arms covered by the license issued in his favour. Learned counsel urged that mere pendency of the criminal case cannot be a ground to refuse the renewal of license. Learned counsel submitted that it is not the case against the petitioner he has ever misused the arms covered by the license issued in his favour. Learned counsel urged that mere pendency of the criminal case cannot be a ground to refuse the renewal of license. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon a Bench decisions of this Court in the matters of "Khem Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors." 2005 (1) RDD 431 (Raj.) and "State & Ors. v. Sahab Ram", 2011 WLC(Raj.)(UC) 230. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner was found indulged in commission of the offence, may be that he has been acquitted of the charges levelled but looking to his conduct, the possibility of arms being misused cannot be ruled out and therefore, rejection of the application preferred by the petitioner for renewal of the license cannot be faulted with. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is to be noticed that the license was issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 1985 and the same was renewed from time to time upto the year 2009. Indisputably, the criminal record of the petitioner upto the year 1999 was considered by the Licensing Authority while granting last renewal in the year 2006 and the only case registered thereafter is for the offences under Sections 341, 323 & 447 IPC. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has ever misused the arms, license whereof was issued to him by the competent authority. Thus, the apprehension of the respondent authorities that if the license is renewed, the arms may be misused by the petitioner, is ill founded. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Licensing Authority was not justified in refusing the renewal of the arms license existing in the name of the petitioner for last about 24 years, holding that the arms is likely to be misused and there is possibility of breach of public peace, law and order. 7. In view of the discussion above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 13.8.12 of the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur and order dated 19.4.12 of District Magistrate, Barmer, are quashed. 7. In view of the discussion above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 13.8.12 of the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur and order dated 19.4.12 of District Magistrate, Barmer, are quashed. The District Magistrate, Barmer, is directed to consider the petitioner's application for renewal of the arms license afresh. The application for the renewal of the license shall be considered expeditiously, in any case, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.