JUDGMENT 1. - The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the order dated 22.10.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh and the order dated 1.12.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, vide which the licence of the petitioner was cancelled, with a further prayer that licence be now renewed. 2. The petitioner was granted an arms licence No.114/1997 issued by the competent authority. After issuance of the licence, the petitioner purchased a M.L. Gun DB 2488 and since then the same is lying with him for the object and purpose for which the aforesaid arm licence was issued. Before expiry of the term of renewal of the licence, the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh moved an application before the Court of Collector cum District Magistrate that some cases against the petitioner are pending in various courts and therefore, the arms licence issued to the petitioner be cancelled. A notice was also issued to the petitioner. He duly replied to the notice stating therein that cases were simple in nature and therefore registration of the cases in itself is not sufficient to cancel the arms licence issued to the petitioner. However, the said licence was nevertheless cancelled vide order dated 22.10.2008 passed by the Collector cum District Magistrate, Pratapgarh. The Divisional Commissioner also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 1.12.2009. 3. Two cases were registered against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 143,149 and 288 IPC in which only penalty of fine was imposed. The second case was registered under Sections 148, 341, 323, 427, 325/149 IPC and the petitioner was duly acquitted in the said case although on the basis of compromise. He has also been acquitted for the offence under Sections 148 and 149 IPC giving him the benefit of doubt. 4. Reply has been filed. In the reply, these facts are not disputed. In any case, there is no allegation that petitioner used the said weapon in the said criminal cases registered against him or for any wrong purpose. In the case of Shiv Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 4. Reply has been filed. In the reply, these facts are not disputed. In any case, there is no allegation that petitioner used the said weapon in the said criminal cases registered against him or for any wrong purpose. In the case of Shiv Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2013 (2) WLC (Raj.) 393 wherein in almost similar set of circumstances, it was held as under:- "In the instant matter too no material is available on record to arrive at the conclusion that pendency of a case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 Indian Penal Code may cause injury to public peace or public safety and to secure the same revocation of licence by not renewing the same was necessary. Mere pendency of a criminal case against a person is not sufficient to revoke arm licence but the requirement is to have sufficient satisfaction of licensing authority that suspension or revocation of licence is necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. In absence of such satisfaction if an arm licence is suspended or revoked while exercising powers under sub-section(3) of Section 17 of the Act of 1959 shall be illegal. As already stated, the licensing authority under the order dated 15.7.2009 has not given any reason to satisfy himself that non renewal of the arm licence of the petitioner was necessary to secure public peace or public safety, therefore, the same is illegal. The appellate authority also failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter." 5. Similar view was expressed in the case of State & Ors. v. Saheb Ram (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.11/2010) decided on 10.1.2011 The Division Bench of this Court way back in the case of Khem Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2005(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 907 while considering the cancellation of licence during the pendency of the case observed in para 3 as under: "It is contended by the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the District Magistrate has not recorded any finding to the effect that it was necessary to cancel the licence for the security of the public peace or the public safety. Mere fact that some cases have been registered against the appellant cannot be a ground to conclude that the cancellation of the licence was necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Addl. Government Advocate that the material on record clearly shows that the appellant is a person with criminal background. As such the learned Magistrate was right in considering that the cancellation of the Arms Licence was necessary for the security of the public peace." 6. In the present case, as observed earlier, there is no allegation that petitioner used the said weapon in the criminal cases registered against him which further fortifies the opinion that he is not likely to misuse the weapon. Therefore, merely on the assumption that the same is likely to effect the public peace and public safety is not sufficient in the absence of any basis or material. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move fresh application for renewal of his licence. Upon filing such application, the District Collector, Pratapgarh shall consider the same in the light of the above order and pass appropriate order for issuance of the licence.Petition Disposed of. *******