JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Brijesh Kumar Kuldeep, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are that petitioner applied for arm licence before the opposite party no.2/District Magistrate, Hardoi and after verification from Tahsil and concerned police station, licence no.13597 for NP bore riffle was granted to him and in pursuance to the same, he has purchased riffle no.0742-07857, same is renewed up to 26.01.2018. 3. On 26.08.2013, licensing authority/District Magistrate, Hardoi issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on the basis of the report dated 19.08.2013 submitted by Superintendent of Police, Hardoi on the ground that as two criminal cases i.e. Crime No.1396 of 2013 under Section 30 of Arms Act and Crime No.1433 of 2013 under Section 3/5, A/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Rules have been registered against him and the same are pending, so why his arms licence be cancelled. 4. After receiving the said notice, petitioner submitted his reply on 13.09.2013 in which it is stated that he has not misused his arms licence bearing Licence No.13597. Thereafter, licensing authority by order dated 03.07.2015 has cancelled the petitioner's arms licence on the ground that two criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. If the petitioner is allowed to retain his arms, it will be against the breach of public peace and public safety and in the public interest, it is not desirable to allow him to keep his arms licence against riffle no.0742-07857. 5. The order dated 03.07.2015 passed by opposite party no.2 was challenged by the petitioner by filing Appeal No.C 20151000001873 under Section 18 of Arms Act, 1959, dismissed by order dated 28.11.2015 passed by opposite party no.1/Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. 6. In view of the above said factual background, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, the sole question which is to be considered and decided in the present case is that whether due to pendency of criminal case registered against the petitioner, his arms licence can be cancelled. 8. Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, provides for variation, suspension and revocation. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, the sole question which is to be considered and decided in the present case is that whether due to pendency of criminal case registered against the petitioner, his arms licence can be cancelled. 8. Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, provides for variation, suspension and revocation. And Section 17(3) reads as under:- Section 17(3):- The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence:-- "(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act ; or (b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence ; or (c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it ; or (d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened ; or (e) if the holder of the licence has failed to' comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring hiseemingly formed an opinion that it was necessary for the security of the public peace and public safetym to deliver up the licence....." 9. The said section has come up for judicial scrutiny in the case of C.P. Sahu Vs. State, 1984 AWC 145 ; Kailashnath Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1985 AWC 493 ; Balram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1988 AWC 1481 4; Rana Pratap Singh Vs. The said section has come up for judicial scrutiny in the case of C.P. Sahu Vs. State, 1984 AWC 145 ; Kailashnath Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1985 AWC 493 ; Balram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1988 AWC 1481 4; Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1995 ACJ 200 and as per the judicial provocation given, there on the following points:- (a) the licensing authority has no power to suspend the arms licence pending enquiry into its cancellation/suspension nor has it the power to suspend the licence for indefinite period; (b) licensing authority has the power to suspend for specified period a fire-arm licence on being satisfied as to existence of all or any of the conditions visualised by clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act sans any prior opportunity of hearing being given to the licence holder but such order of suspension shall not attain finality until the aggrieved party has been heard and his objections, if any, adjudicated. In other words, suspension of arms licence for specified period or its revocation under Section 17(3) of the Act, if ordered without affording opportunity of hearing, would endure in suspended animation until the aggrieved party has been heard by the licensing authority and his objections, if any, are adjudicated: (c) the licensing authority can also for the furtherance of the immediate remedial actions, exercise in facts and circumstances of a given case, an incidental power of directing the licence holder to surrender his licence until objections have been decided ; and (d) suspension under Section 17(3) of the Act must be for definite period to be specified in the order by the licensing authority. 10. Further, this Court in the case of Sahab Singh Vs. Commissioner Agra Region, Agara and others 2006 (24) LCD 374, in paragraph No. 3 held as under:- "The submission of the petitioner is That merely because of pendency of a criminal case, the arms licence of the petitioner cannot be cancelled. in support of the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court in the case of Hausla Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Ishwar @ Bhuri v. State of U.P.. in support of the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court in the case of Hausla Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Ishwar @ Bhuri v. State of U.P.. It has further been submitted that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the cases of Balram Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. 1985 A.W.C. 493 as well as the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sadri Ram v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and Ors., the arms licence of the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension pending enquiry." 11. From the perusal of the Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act, the position which emerges out is that arms licence of a person can be cancelled, if licensing authority is satisfied that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for the public safety. 12. In Thakur Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in [ 2013 (31) LCD 1460 ], this court propounded that "Public Peace" or "Public Safety" do not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order, but the public safety means safety of the public at large and not safety of few persons only. Relevant paras 9, 10 and 11 of the said case read as under: "9. Further, while passing the impugned order also the licensing authority has not given any adequate finding that if petitioner holds the arms license then the same shall be against the public peace or public safety. "10. 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 and before passing of the order of cancellation of arm license as per 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 in view of the judgment given by this Court in the case of Ram Murli Madhukar Vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998(16) LCD 905], wherein it has been held that license can not be suspended or revoked on the ground of public interest (Jan-hit) merely on the registration of an F.I.R. and pending of a criminal case." 13. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998(16) LCD 905], wherein it has been held that license can not be suspended or revoked on the ground of public interest (Jan-hit) merely on the registration of an F.I.R. and pending of a criminal case." 13. In the present case, no finding has been given that in what manner if the petitioner is allowed to keep his arms licence, the same is against a breach of public peace and public safety. Further as per settled law, mere involvement in a criminal case without any finding that if the petitioner is allowed to keep his arms, then it shall be detrimental to public peace and tranquility cannot be a ground for cancellation of arms licence. 14. Thus, in view of the above said facts stated herein above, the impugned orders dated 03.07.2015 and 28.11.2015 passed by opposite party nos.2 and 1 under challenge in the present writ petition are in contravention to the provisions as provided under Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959, liable to be set aside. 15. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 03.07.2015 and 28.11.2015 passed by opposite party nos.2 and 1 under challenge in the present writ petition are set aside.