JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. Ram Tej Yadav-petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Gonda whereby the firearm license of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground of pendency of criminal cases as also the judgment and order dated 18.02.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda/Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner and affirming the order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the District Magistrate. 3. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the year 2000, a firearm license bearing No.342 was granted to him, in pursuance whereof, he purchased an SBBL Gun No.22691. In the year 2012, on the basis of a report submitted by the police on 09.09.2012, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking him as to why his firearm license may not be cancelled on account of pendency of criminal cases. The petitioner has submitted his reply on 05.09.2012 but without considering the reply of the petitioner, the firearm license was cancelled vide impugned order dated 17.12.2012 merely on the ground of apprehension of public peace and tranquility and safety of general public. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred Appeal No.109 before the Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda, which was rejected in a cursory manner and as such the petitioner has filed the instant appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that impugned orders have been passed without considering the facts in its entirety and in utter disregard to the law as propounded by this Court in number of cases, namely, Ram Sanehi vs. Commissioner Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another [2004(22) LCD 1643] and Rayees Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others [2002(20) LCD 913],Veerpal Singh versus State of U.P. and others [ Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39831 of 2010 decided on 29.7.2011] Vishram Yadav versus Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda [Misc Sigle No. 1849 of 2015 decided on 12.8.2016] and Ran Bahadur Singh versus Commissioner, Faizabad Division[Misc. Single No. 5912 of 2008 decided on 30.8.2016] 6. Writ Petition No. 39831 of 2010 decided on 29.7.2011] Vishram Yadav versus Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda [Misc Sigle No. 1849 of 2015 decided on 12.8.2016] and Ran Bahadur Singh versus Commissioner, Faizabad Division[Misc. Single No. 5912 of 2008 decided on 30.8.2016] 6. Concluding his arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grounds which are mentioned in Section 17(3) of the Arms Act are not at all attracted in the case of the petitioner and the petitioner has not contravened any of the conditions as enumerated in the licence and as such the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate as also the order passed by the Appellate Authority is illegal and cannot be sustained. 7. In contrast, learned Standing Counsel, while refuting the allegations of the petitioner, submitted that the impugned orders were passed strictly in accordance with law and provisions of Arms Act and both the orders do not suffer from any infirmity. The licensing authority after considering the material facts on record has given a categorical finding of fact that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of arm license. 8. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case or apprehension that there is threat to public peace and tranquility can be a ground for revocation of licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The District Magistrate, Basti & others; 1979 (16) ACC 6 (sum), 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, and Ram Sanehi Vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda & another [supra] and other cases, referred to above. 9. Mere fact that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner, it could not form basis for cancelling the license. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has brought to the notice of the authorities concerned that the license was granted to him in the year 2000 and criminal cases registered prior to grant of license i.e. case crime no.613/93 and case crime no. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has brought to the notice of the authorities concerned that the license was granted to him in the year 2000 and criminal cases registered prior to grant of license i.e. case crime no.613/93 and case crime no. 124A/99 have been taken into consideration by the licensing authority while passing the impugned order, which shows that the licensing authority has not applied its proper mind. The cases, which were registered, after the grant of license in the year 2012, there is no allegation that the petitioner has used the licensed weapon in the commission of crime. Moreover, in case crime no. 613/93, petitioner has been acquitted by the competent court and this material fact was also not considered by the appellate court, which is a serious omission on his part. 10. The order passed by the District Magistrate cannot be upheld in absence of anything as contained in Section 17(3) of the Act. The Appellate Court has also committed an error in not considering the facts in its correct prospective and has also failed to appreciate the grounds mentioned in Section 17(3) of the Arms Act regarding revocation or for suspending a licence. It is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arm is not a sufficient ground for passing the order of suspension or revocation of license under Section 17 (3) of the Act. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be legally sustained. 11. Accordingly, impugned order dated 18.2.2015 passed by the Commissioner as also the order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the District Magistrate are hereby quashed. The licensing authority is directed to renew the firearm license of the petitioner, within a maximum period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 12. The writ petition stands allowed in above terms.