JUDGMENT : Abdul Moin, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief’s:-- "Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned orders dated 30.1.2017 and 15.6.2015 passed by the opposite party No. 1 and 2 as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to this writ petition. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to give effect to the impugned orders contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to this writ petition. Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Allow this writ petition with costs." 3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that he was holding an arms license for an SBBL Gun vide license No. 132. In the year 2012, there was some dispute of the petitioner with his neighbours which resulted into an FIR being lodged against the petitioner and several others under the provisions of sections 147, 148, 307, 336, 323, 506, 506 IPC at Police Station-Dostpur District-Sultanpur which was registered as Case Crime No. 400 of 2012. It is also contended that a counter FIR was also lodged which was registered as Case Crime No. 400-A of 2012. Taking into consideration the said FIR, initially the petitioner was issued a notice dated 21.7.2012 under the provisions of section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1959"). Thereafter, in case No. 37 In re; State v. Mohd. Hashim, after considering the reply of the petitioner and considering the fact that the aforesaid Case Crime No. 400 of 2012 had been registered against the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid dispute and there was every likelihood of the petitioner misusing his weapon, the District Magistrate, Sultanpur vide order dated 15.6.2015 cancelled the Arms License No. 132 of the petitioner. Copy of the said order is Annexure 2 to the petition. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said order preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad vide Appeal No. 222/Sultanpur under the provision of section 18 of the Act, 1959. Copy of the said order is Annexure 2 to the petition. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said order preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad vide Appeal No. 222/Sultanpur under the provision of section 18 of the Act, 1959. The said appeal was also rejected by indicating the very same facts which had been indicated while cancelling the arms license vide order dated 30.1.2017. Copy of the said order dated 30.1.2017 is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner being aggrieved against both the orders is now before this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that both the orders by which the arms license has been cancelled dated 15.6.2015 as well as the order by which the appeal has been rejected vide order dated 30.1.2017 reflect patent non application of mind and the authorities have proceeded on the basis of a probability of misuse of weapon. It is contended that such probability could not have been considered by the authority while cancelling the arms license. It is also contended that in the aforesaid case crime No. 400 of 2012, the petitioner has already been acquitted by the Court of Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Sultanpur vide judgment and order dated 1.7.2017, a copy of which has been filed as annexure RA 2 to the rejoinder affidavit. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits at the bar that the said order has attained finality inasmuch as no party has challenged the said order of acquittal. Thus, it is contended that the very basis of passing of the order of cancellation of the arms license is now gone and consequently, the order dated 15.6.2015 and the appellate order dated 30.1.2017 merit to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of the averments contained in the counter affidavit has supported the both the orders dated 15.6.2015 and 30.1.2017 by contending that the order cancelling the arms license of the petitioner was correctly passed inasmuch as taking into consideration the aforesaid FIR being lodged against the petitioner and others and the petitioner being in possession of the arms license, there was every possibility and probability of the petitioner using the said weapon in the said dispute. Accordingly, it is contended that the District Magistrate, Sultanpur has committed no error in cancelling the arms license and it has been argued that the orders merit to be upheld by this Court. It is also contended that the order passed by the Appellate Authority being based on the order of the District Magistrate is also legally valid and calls for no interference from the Court. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the contesting parties and having perused the record. 8. It is undisputed fact that the District Magistrate vide order dated 15.6.2015 has proceeded to cancel the arms license of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of the aforesaid criminal case. A perusal of the said order also indicates that despite he having noted that in the aforesaid incident there was no allegation of the arms being misused or any injury having been caused on account of the weapon, the report of the police of the weapon having been brandished during the incident has been indicated. A probability of the misuse of the said weapon has also been expressed. However, the fact of the matter remains that once the entire incident which resulted in case crime No. 400 of 2012 being lodged against the petitioner has now ended into an acquittal on 1.7.2017 of the petitioner, consequently the very basis of passing of the order of cancelling the arms license is negated. 9. In this regard, this Court may refer to an earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Lalji v. Commissioner, Kanpur and others, (1999) 4 AWC 2952 (All) All wherein it has been held that if the license of fire arm is cancelled on the ground of involvement in criminal cases and the licensee is acquitted in those cases, then there remains no material for cancelling the gun license. This Court in the case of Lalji (supra) had placed reliance on another judgment of this Court passed in the case of Anil Kumar Singh v. District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, to arrive at the said conclusion. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observations in the case of Lalji (supra) are reproduced as under:-- "4..............It is not disputed that the sole ground on which the gun licence of the petitioner had been cancelled by the District Magistrate and upheld in appeal by the Commissioner, Is that a criminal case for the offence committed under sections 302/201. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observations in the case of Lalji (supra) are reproduced as under:-- "4..............It is not disputed that the sole ground on which the gun licence of the petitioner had been cancelled by the District Magistrate and upheld in appeal by the Commissioner, Is that a criminal case for the offence committed under sections 302/201. I.P.C. is pending before the Trial Court and the petitioner can misuse his gun at any time. The 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge. Kanpur vide order dated 30.1.1999 had acquitted the petitioner. Thus, the basis on which the gun licence of the petitioner has been cancelled does not survive. This Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh v. District Magistrate, Pratapgarh and others, 1996 AWC 46 has held that if the licence of fire arm is cancelled on the ground of involvement in criminal cases and the licensee is acquitted in those cases, then there remains no material for cancelling the gun licence. Thus, in my view, the very basis on which the gun licence of the petitioner has been cancelled, has been wiped off and is no longer in existence. Consequently, the orders dated 13.5.1998 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and the order dated 16.7.1998 passed by the Commissioner. Kanpur (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed." 10. In this view of the matter, order dated 15.6.2015 cancelling the arms license and the order dated 30.1.2017 by which the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected cannot be upheld. 11. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, the orders dated 15.6.2015 and 30.1.2017, copies of which are Annexures 2 and 1 to the writ petition are quashed and set aside.