ORDER : 1. The petitioner has approached this court by way of this writ petition for assailing the order dated 09.09.2014 (Annex.3) passed by the respondent No.2 Additional Commissioner of Police, Licensing, Police Commissionerate, Jodhpur, whereby the explosive licence No.74/1984 issued to the petitioner was suspended. 2. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein the suspension order is justified on the premise that the same was passed as a natural consequence of a criminal case registered against the petitioner for the offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1884. However, nobody has appeared to argue the matter on behalf of the respondents when the case was called out. 3. It may be stated here that the order of suspension of licence was stayed by this court while entertaining the writ petition. A licensee alike the petitioner, namely, Mr. Tahir Ali Ansari, approached this court for assailing an identical order, whereby the explosive licence No.2/2005 issued in his favour was suspended in a similar streak. Mr. Tahir Ali challenged the order of suspension of licence by filing a writ petition bearing No.7112/2014, which came to be allowed by this court on 16.10.2014. 4. Mr. Nilesh Bohra, learned counsel representing the petitioner, relies upon the said order and urges that the petitioner too deserves the same relief on parity. 5. In the judgment aforesaid, the co-ordinate Bench observed as under :- “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the reasons assigned in the impugned order for suspension are per se not tenable and merely on account of pendency of a criminal case cannot be set out a ground for suspension of licence of explosives. The provisions contained under sub-section (6) of Section 6E of the Act of 1884 are also clear, wherein it is envisaged that licence can be suspended if the licence holder is convicted by a Court of law under the Act of 1884. In this view of the matter mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be a valid ground for suspension of explosive licence as it is not possible to infer capability of the licence holder for the alleged offence. Division Bench of this Court, while examining the rigor of Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 for cancellation of arms licence in Khem Singh V/s. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Division Bench of this Court, while examining the rigor of Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 for cancellation of arms licence in Khem Singh V/s. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2005(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 907], has held that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot confer a ground for cancellation of arms licence in favour of an incumbent. The Court held in this behalf as under :- “5. From the reading of the provision it is manifest that the licensing authority may revoke a licence if it deem necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. The power of suspension of Arms licence is necessary concomitant of power of revocation for effective control and regulation as also for the security of the public peace or public safety. Such a power has to be exercised with great circumspection. The satisfaction of the authority has to be objective and must be based upon relevant material. Mere fact that some reports have been lodged against the licence holder is not sufficient for cancelling the licence. A licence can be revoked u/s. 17(3)(b) if the licensing authority deem it necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. In absence of any finding that cancellation was necessary for public peace or public safety, such an order is liable to be quashed.” In view of law laid down by the Division Bench and provisions contained under sub-section (6) of Section 6E of the Act of 1884 read with Rule 118 of the Explosive Rules 2008, the reasons assigned in the impugned order for suspension of licence of the petitioner cannot be sustained and consequently the impugned order is quashed and set aside.” 6. Considered in light of the aforesaid judgment, the instant writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order Annex.3 dated 09.09.2014 is quashed and set aside. 7. Before parting, however, in the larger public interest, it is made clear that petitioner shall furnish undertaking before the licensing authority that during subsistence of his licence and during Diwali festival, he would not violate the provisions of the Act of 1884 and shall keep the public interest paramount while vending explosives/fire crackers to the respective consumers. Requisite order, in this behalf, may be passed by the licensing authority after receiving undertaking of the petitioner forthwith.