JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondent. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned orders dated 11.08.2014 passed by Opposite Party No. 3 i.e, District Magistrate, Shrawasti, under Section 17(3) of Arms Act in Case No. 4/2014, as well as the impugned order dated 20.02.2017 passed by Learned Opposite Party No. 2 i.e Commissioner, Devi Patan mandal, Shrawasti in Appeal No. 93, under Section 18 of Arms Act, contained in Annexure No. 1 and 2 to this writ petition. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as the Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper. To allow the writ petition with costs throughout.” 3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that the petitioner was a licensee of NP Bore Revolver (0.32 Bore) bearing license no. 444/II (Revolver) relating to Police Station-Ikauna, District-Shrawasti, the same having been granted by the respondent no. 3, i.e District Magistrate, Shrawasti in accordance with law after following due procedure prescribed under The Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1959”). Petitioner contends that on account of some political and previous enmity, an F.I.R was lodged against him which resulted in Case Crime No. 255/2012 under Sections 147, 353 I.P.C at Police Station-Ikauna, District-Shrawasti. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with a Show Cause Notice dated 24.02.2014 under the provision of Section 17(3) of the Act, 1959 asking him to Show Cause as to why the arms license granted to the petitioner be not cancelled. 5. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply before the respondent no. 3, i.e. District Magistrate, Shrawasti denying the averments and contended that the said F.I.R which resulted in Case Crime No. 255/12 was as a result and retaliation as a counter blast to the NCR No. 17/12 lodged by petitioner against Smt. Zinat Begum and her husband. The District Magistrate after considering the reply of the petitioner, passed the order dated 11.08.2014 by which the fire arms license of the petitioner was cancelled. The copy of the order dated 11.08.2014 is annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. 6. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda i.e respondent no. The copy of the order dated 11.08.2014 is annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. 6. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda i.e respondent no. 2 bearing Appeal No. 93 under the provision of Section 18 of the Act, 1959 on various grounds and consequently prayed for setting aside the order by which his arms license has been cancelled. 7. The respondent no. 2, i.e Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda vide order dated 20.02.2017 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The copy of the order dated 20.02.2017 is annexure no. 2 to the writ petition. 8. It is against both the orders dated 11.08.2014 and 20.02.2017 that the present petition has been filed. 9. The petitioner contends that both the District Magistrate as well as the Commissioner while passing the order dated 11.08.2014 as well as the order dated 20.02.2017 respectively have been swayed primarily on account of pendency of the cases against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the said case which has been considered by both the authorities has subsequently resulted into a compromise being entered between the parties on 01.11.2017. Thereafter, this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1689 of 2012 under Section 482 Cr.P.C, taking into consideration the said compromise entered into the parties, allowed the said case vide order dated 11.01.2018. Copy of the order dated 11.01.2018 is annexure 1 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the said case having ended into a compromise between the parties and this Court vide judgment and order dated 11.01.2018 having allowed the case, at this stage it cannot be said that there is any criminal case pending against the petitioner. He further argues that both the authorities only took into consideration the pendency of the criminal case without considering that the mere pendency of a criminal case would not result in an automatic cancellation of the arms license and as such it is apparent that both the authorities have not applied their mind while initially cancelling the arms license and thereafter affirming the order of cancellation. 11. In this regard, the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Vs. 11. In this regard, the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division reported in 2011 (29) LCD 1041 to challenge the finding recorded by the District Magistrate vide order dated 11.08.2014 that on account of pendency of the criminal case it is neither in Public Peace nor Public Security that the arms license of the petitioner should continue. This Court in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) has held as under: “6. “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. Before passing of the order in exercise of power conferred under 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 Ram Murli Madhukar Vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998(16) LCD 905], this Court has held that licence can not be suspended or revoked on the ground of public interest (Janhit) 7. It is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arms act are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17 (3) of the Act. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The District Magistrate, Basti & others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest. The law propounded in the said decisions has been subsequently followed in Habib Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2002 ACC 783.” 12. Likewise the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Suresh Pratap Singh in Misc. The law propounded in the said decisions has been subsequently followed in Habib Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2002 ACC 783.” 12. Likewise the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Suresh Pratap Singh in Misc. Single No. 1530 of 2010 decided on 09.03.2017 to contend that this Court in a similar matter has held as under: “On behalf of the petitioner, it has also been submitted that as per the settled proposition of law mere pendency of criminal case, cannot be a ground for cancelling the arm licence and in criminal case no.144/2005 under sections 147/148/336/307 IPC which the basis for cancelling the arm license of the petitioner from which he has been acquitted, so the same cannot be a ground for cancelling the arm license. In this regard reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Firasat Ali @ Munna Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (1) JIC 93 (All). Accordingly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 12.10.2006 passed by opposite party no.2/ District Magistrate Gonda and the order dated 6.1.2010 (Annexure no.2) passed by opposite party no.3/ Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda under challenge in the writ petition , liable to be set aside. Learned Standing Counsel while supporting the impugned orders, submits that both the authorities after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that due to criminal case against the petitioner, there is a breach of public peace and safety, so the arm license of the petitioner was cancelled by opposite party no.2, upheld by opposite party no.3 in appeal as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders under challenge in the writ petition liable to be dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is not in dispute that a show cause notice dated 17.11.2005 has been issued to the petitioner by opposite party no.2 on the basis of complaint made by Sri Hari Ram Singh that petitioner has fired at his grandson Arjun Singh by the gun and a criminal case no.144/2005 under sections 147/148/336/307 IPC has been registered against the petitioner so taking into consideration the said fact arm license of the petitioner was cancelled by the licensing authority/ opposite party no.2 by order dated 12.10.2006 on the ground that there is a breach of peace and public safety. Further, as per settled proposition of law that mere pendency of criminal case, can be a ground for cancellation of arm license without giving adequate reason that if a criminal case is pending against a person and he is allowed to keep his arm there is breach of public peace and safety in view of the provisions of section 17(3) (a) of the Arms Act. In the instant matter no such adequate findings has been given by the District Magistrate, Gonda/opposite party no.2 while passing the order dated 12.10.2006, cancelling the arm license of the petitioner only on bald statement has been given that on 16.10.2005 petitioner has fired at Sri Arjun Singh grandson of Hari Ram Singh so he has used the gun as such there is breach of public peace and safety , the same cannot be a ground for cancellation of arm license as per provisions of Section 17(3) (b) of the Arms Act . In the present case petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case no. In the present case petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case no. 144/2005 under sections 147/148/336/307 IPC which is the basis of cancellation of arm license Moreover a finding has been given by opposite party no.2 that petitioner was unable to prove that on the date of incident (16.10.2005) he had deposited his gun for repairing purpose with M/s Singh Gun House Shobhapur Nawabganj, District Gonda, the said findings given by opposite party no.2, upheld by opposite party no.3/ Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda by order dated 6.1.201o , is contrary to facts on record because from the perusal of the record the position which emerge out is that a certificate has been issued by M/s Singh Gun House Shobhapur Nawabganj, District Gonda that the gun was deposited for the purpose of repair on 15.10.2005, so the finding given by opposite party no.2 in the impugned order dated 12.10.2006 that the petitioner has failed to prove that his gun was deposited for the purpose of repair is not as per the material on record, the same needs verification after reappraisal of the facts. In view the above said fact the matter needs reconsideration at the end of opposite party no.2/ licensing authority that whether the petitioner's arm license can be cancelled in view of the provisions of section 17(3) (b) of the Arms Act or not . For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 12.10.2006 (Annexure no.1) passed by opposite party no.2/District Magistrate Gonda and the order dated 6.1.2010 (Annexure no.2) passed by opposite party no.3/ Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda passed in Appeal no. 131 (Suresh Pratap Singh Vs. State) under section 18 of the Arms Act are set aside, matter is remanded to opposite party no.2/ District Magistrate, Gonda to reconsider the same in view of the observation made herein above after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner expeditiously, say, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.” 13. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cancellation of the arms license would not be automatic upon pendency of a criminal case rather the competent authority has to apply his mind and indicate as to whether there is a danger to Public Peace and Safety involved in the case and the same not having been done in the instant case prior the passing impugned order dated 11.08.2014, the said order and the subsequent appellate order are patently bad in the eyes of law. 14. On the other hand, Sri Rahul Shukla contends that once there was serious criminal charges against the petitioner and the F.I.R has been lodged under Sections 147, 353, 332 and 504 of the I.P.C then irrespective of the fact that the said case resulted into a compromise between the parties, at the time when the District Magistrate passed the order dated 11.08.2014 and subsequently also when the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, the said factor was germane to the issue and consequently there is no error or illegality in both the impugned orders. Sri Rahul Shukla has also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2014 (85) ACC 803 Inre: State of U.P Vs. Mahipat Singh to contend that the reasons which prevailed upon the District Magistrate while passing the order dated 11.08.2014 pertaining to there being a threat to Public Peace and Security was based upon the criminal case being pending against the petitioner and consequently this Court may not interfere with the orders passed by both the authorities. 15. Having considered the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties, what this Court finds is that though the competent authority vide order dated 11.08.2014 cancelled the arms license on the ground of pendency of the criminal case as well as after arriving at a finding of there being threat to Public Peace and Security and the said order came to be affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 20.02.2017 yet the changed circumstances namely the said criminal case having ended into a compromise between the parties and this Court having allowed the case filed by the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 11.01.2018 were obviously such factors which were subsequent to the two orders and consequently could not have been considered by the authorities. Moreover, what is relevant and germance to the issue is that the order dated 11.08.2014 does not indicate application of mind as to whether there was a danger to Public Peace and Safety involved in the case rather it was done automatically taking into consideration the pendency of the criminal case. 16. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent no. 3 i.e District Magistrate , Shrawasti is required to revisit the matter in the light of the judgment of this Court dated 11.01.2018 passed in Case No. 1689 of 2012 Inre: Vinod Kumar Shukla and Ors Vs. State of U.P and Ors and shall consider the entire issue and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before him. The petitioner shall also place a copy of the order of this Court passed in Case No. 1689 of 2012 decided on 11.01.2018. Needless to mention that the impugned order dated 11.08.2014 and the order passed on the appeal dated 20.02.2017 shall be subject to the order to be passed by the District Magistrate in pursuance to the order of this Court. Petitioner shall have liberty of challenging the said order to be passed by the District Magistrate in appropriate proceedings. 17. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.