ORDER Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 1/6/2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Bikaner, whereby, renewal application filed by the petitioner pertaining to his arm license has been rejected and he has been directed to deposit the arm immediately and order dated 29/10/2012, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner. 2. The petitioner was granted arm license in February, 1994 by the Additional District Magistrate, Firozpur for all India, which was regularly renewed till 16/3/2009. Thereafter, when the petitioner filed an application for its renewal, a report was given that against the petitioner a case no. 48/96 was registered regarding which challan was filed, which fact has not been disclosed by him and, therefore, the license be not renewed. Based on the said report, the District Magistrate rejected the application and directed deposit of the arm with the Police Station for safe custody. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal and submitted that the challan was filed on 16/8/1996 under Section 341, 323 and 342 IPC and the case was decided based on compromise on 1/11/1996. However, the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner by the impugned order came to the conclusion that the very fact that a case was registered against the petitioner, he appears to be a person of hot temper and suspicious and consequently rejected the appeal. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner have passed the orders without conducting proper inquiry and the same have been passed on the basis of suspicion and hypothetical reasoning, the basis for cancellation of license is filing of criminal case, wherein the petitioner has already been acquitted; though the license was granted and renewed during the time the petitioner was facing trial and for the period long thereafter, which shows non-application of mind by the respondents. 5. Reliance was placed on Khem Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2005 (1) RDD 431 (Raj.) (DB); Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2014 (4) CDR 2476 (Raj.) and Vijendra v. District Collector & Magistrate, Hanumangarh & Anr., 2015 (3) CDR 1210 (Raj.). 6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court and that acquittal of the petitioner is of no consequence and the rejection was necessary for the security, public peace and for public safety and the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the circumstances of the case, be not exercised. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. A bare look at the orders of the District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner reveals that arm license was issued to the petitioner way back in 1994 and only one case was registered in the year 1996, which stood compromised in 1996 itself and, thereafter, the license continued to be renewed during the period 1997 to 2009 and after 1996 there is apparently no incident so as to require now taking a view based on already settled case way back in the year 1996 and, therefore, apparently no case of denial of renewal of arm license on the ground, which has been indicated in the orders impugned is made out. 9. This Court in the case of Gurdev Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1789/2009, decided on 07.07.2014, even in the case, where the criminal case was pending, placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment in the case of Khem Singh (supra), came to the conclusion that pendency of criminal case against an incumbent is not a ground for cancellation of arms licence under Section 17 (3)(b) of the Act and as in the case of Gurdev Singh (supra) the petitioner had been acquitted in criminal case and there was no allegation that renewal of licence can cause any harm to the public peace or public safety, both the orders were set aside. Further in the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra) and Vijendra (supra) relying on judgment of this Court in State & Ors. v. Sahab Ram, 2011 WLC (Raj.) (UC) 230, the similar orders, which were passed by the authorities below, were set aside. 10. Further in the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra) and Vijendra (supra) relying on judgment of this Court in State & Ors. v. Sahab Ram, 2011 WLC (Raj.) (UC) 230, the similar orders, which were passed by the authorities below, were set aside. 10. From the above, it is apparent that when the renewal was being considered in the year 2009, there was essentially no material between the period 1996 to the date of consideration indicating the conduct of the petitioner which can be said to be not conducive to public peace or public safety and the orders have been passed mechanically without considering any aspect and repeated renewal during all these years after the first case was registered and compromised, the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted based on compromise cannot be taken into consideration and, therefore, both the orders impugned cannot be sustained. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate, Bikaner and Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner are set aside. The District Magistrate, Bikaner is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for renewal of arm license; the consideration may be made within four weeks from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.