JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Tanzeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter-alia with the prayer to quash the order dated 01.11.2019 passed by the Commissioner Bareilly Division Bareilly in Appeal No. 00614 of 2018 filed under Section 18 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 as well as the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Badaun in Case No. 08 of 2014 under Section 17-(3) of the Act of 1959. 3. Though time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit vide order dated 18.03.2021 but till date no counter affidavit has been filed. 4. Today when the matter is taken up, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel that since pure questions of law is involved in the present case, writ petition could be decided on merits even in the absence of the counter affidavit. 5. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner was granted an Arms License in the year 2004 and she never misused the aforesaid arm at any point of time as well as she was never involved in any offence of criminal nature whatsoever. On 03.11.2013 an incident of murder had taken place at Mohalla Khandsari, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Badaun and in this regard a report was lodged against the unknown persons by one Harish which was registered as Case Crime No. 980 of 2013 under section 452, 302 IPC of Police Station-Kotwali, District-Budaun. 6. During the investigation some of the family members of the petitioner including her husband has been falsely implicated in the said offence. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the petitioner was directed to deposit her fire arm in the police station, which was duly deposited by her on 21.11.2013. It is further stated that in the Session Trial No. 86 of 2014 arising out of Crime No. 980 of 2013 under Section 452, 302/34 and 302/120-B IPC, the husband of the petitioner has been acquitted by the trial court. 7. In view of the aforesaid, a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959. Immediately thereafter vide order dated 27.12.2013 the Arms License of the petitioner was suspended and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in this regard that why her Arm License should not be cancelled. 7. In view of the aforesaid, a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959. Immediately thereafter vide order dated 27.12.2013 the Arms License of the petitioner was suspended and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in this regard that why her Arm License should not be cancelled. The petitioner duly submitted her reply / objections on 06.03.2014 to the aforesaid show cause notice. Thereafter upon the aforementioned reply of the petitioner, another documentary rebuttal on behalf of the S.S.P., Badaun through S.H.O., Kotwali, District-Badaun was filed in the Court of District Magistrate on 05.08.2014. Thereafter the fire arm license of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Badaun vide order dated 23.02.2018. 8. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, a statutory appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly as provided under Section 18 of the Act, 1959 being Appeal No. 00614 of 2018. It is argued that various grounds were taken in the appeal but without considering the same, the order dated 01.11.2019 was passed by the Commissioner rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 9. It is argued by Shri Tanzeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause for cancellation of the arm license of the petitioner has now been ended since the husband of the petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal case whereas the brother-in-law (devar) of the petitioner is also no more. It is further argued that both the orders namely the order passed by the District Magistrate cancelling the arm license of the petitioner as well as the order passed by the Commissioner of the Division rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner are absolutely illegal and both are liable to be set aside. It is further argued that law is well settled that if some relative of the license holder is involved in any offence, the same cannot be a ground for cancellation of the arm license. 10. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel that since the family members of the petitioner are involved in criminal cases, license of the petitioner was rightly cancelled. 10. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel that since the family members of the petitioner are involved in criminal cases, license of the petitioner was rightly cancelled. It is further argued that the cogent reasons were given by the authorities while cancelling the license of the petitioner, hence it is argued that the present petition filed by the petitioner is on baseless ground and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. It appears from perusal of the record that the arm license of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate vide its order dated 22.03.2018, appeal filed against the said order was also rejected vide order dated 01.11.2019 and both orders were passed by the authorities against the petitioner mainly on the ground that the family members of the petitioner are having criminal antecedents. 13. Law in this connection is well settled that arm license cannot be cancelled only on the ground of apprehension. It is also settled law that in case of pendency of the criminal cases arm license cannot be cancelled. A complete procedure in this regard has been provided under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 which reads as follows:- Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, deals with variation, suspension and revocation of the fire arm licence. Section 17 is reproduced as under : "17, Variation, suspension and revocation of licences. (1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice. (2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed. (2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed. (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 him to deliver up the licence. (4) The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof. (5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefore and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement. (6) The authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate may by order in writing suspend or revoke a licence on any ground on which it may be suspended or revoked by the licensing authority, and the foregoing provisions of this section shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the suspension or revocation of a licence by such authority. (7) A court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder may also suspend or revoke the licence: Provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void. (8) An order of suspension or revocation under sub-section (7) may also be made by an appellate court or by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision. (9) 'The Central Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, suspend or revoke or direct any licensing authority to suspend or revoke all or any licences granted under this Act throughout India or any part thereof. (10) On the suspension or revocation of a licence under this section the holder thereof shall without delay surrender the licence to the authority by whom it has been suspended or revoked or to such other authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of suspension or revocation." 14. A bare reading of Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act makes it evident that the licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as he things fit or revoke a license; (b) if the licencing authority deems it necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the license. These two expressions "Security of public peace" and "for public safety" are of utmost importance. The licensing authority must be satisfied of the existence of these pre conditions." 15. Law in this connection is also well settled as has been held in the series of cases by this Court from time to time. In the case of Ram Murti Madhukar vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 (16) LCD 905], this Court has held in paragraph no. 8 as under :- "(8) It is also well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of Arms Act, are not sufficient ground for passing of the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17 of the Act. A reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of this Court in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. D. M. Almora, AIR 1993 All 291 " 16. In the case of Ram Karpal Singh vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Ors. A reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of this Court in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. D. M. Almora, AIR 1993 All 291 " 16. In the case of Ram Karpal Singh vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Ors. [2006 (24) LCD 114], this Court has held as following in paragraph nos. 6 and 7, which are being reproduced hereunder:- "6. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the two judgments of this Court reported in 2002 ACC; Habib v. State of U.P. 7. Para 3 of the said judgment is reproduced as under: "Para 3: The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the license under Arms Act, has been deal with by a Division Bench in this Court reported in Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision reported in Mai Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot be in any way affect the public security or public interest and the order canceling or revoking the licence of fire arm has been set aside. The present impugned order also suffers from the same infirmity as was pointed out by the Division Bench in the above mentioned cases. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench that these orders cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed." 17. This Court in the case of Ram Prasad vs. Commissioner and Ors. decided on 07.02.2020 has held as under. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgments i.e. 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 32 and 36 are being quoted hereunder:- "16. The matter which requires consideration is, whether on the ground of pendency of the criminal case the petitioner's fire arm licence could be cancelled and his appeal could be dismissed, notwithstanding his acquittal on 17.1.2003. It also requires consideration if the ground in the impugned orders that if the petitioner's fire arm licence remain with the petitioner, it would not be in the public interest and public security, are justified for cancellation and based on substantial material." 19. In Masiuddin Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and another reported in 1972 A.L.J. 573 this Court held in paragraph Nos. 4 and 7 as under: "4. In Masiuddin Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and another reported in 1972 A.L.J. 573 this Court held in paragraph Nos. 4 and 7 as under: "4. After a license is granted, the right to hold the license and possess a gun is a valuable individual right in a free country. The security of public peace and public safety is a valuable social interest. Section 17 shows that Parliament had decided that neither of the two valuable interests should unduly impinge on the other Section 17 seeks to establish a fair equilibrium between the two contending interests. It says: Hear the licensee first; and then cancel the license "if necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety". True, there is no express provision for hearing. But the nature of the right affected, the language of Sec. 17, the grounds for cancellation, the requirement of a reasoned order and the right of appeal plainly implicate a fair hearing procedure. Jai Narain Rai v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh. While cancelling a licence, the District Magistrate acts as a quasi-judicial authority. 7. A license may be cancelled, inter alia on the ground that it is "necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety" to do so. The District Magistrate has not recorded a finding that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to revoke the license. The mere existence of enmity between a licensee and another person would not establish the ''necessary' connection with security of public peace or public safety. There should be something more than mere enmity. There should be some evidence of the provocative utterances of the licensee or of his suspicious movements or of his criminal designs and conspiracy in reinforcement of the evidence of enmity. It is not possible to give an exhaustive list of facts and circumstances from which an inference of threat to public security or public peace may be deduced. The District Magistrate will have to take a decision on the facts of each case. But in the instant case there is nothing in his order to indicate that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to cancel the license of the petitioner. Mere enmity is not sufficient." 22. In Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs. But in the instant case there is nothing in his order to indicate that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to cancel the license of the petitioner. Mere enmity is not sufficient." 22. In Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1984 AWC 145 (FB), after noticing the provisions of Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act the Full Bench in paragraph 5 held as follows: "A perusal of abovementioned provisions indicates that the licensing authority has been given the power to suspend or revoe an arms licence only if any of the conditions mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of Act exists." sub section (5) of Section 17 makes it obligatory upon the licensing authority to, while passing the order revoking/suspending an arms licence, record in writing the reasons therefore and to, on demand, furnish a brief statement thereof to the holder of the license unless it considers that it will not be in the public interest to do so." In paragraph-9 it has been emphasised as under:- "it is true that in order to revoke/suspend an arms licence, the licensing authority has necessarily to come to the conclusion that the facts justifying revocation/suspension of licence mentioned in grounds (a) to (e) of section 17 exist" 23. In Ilam Singh v. Commissioner, Meerut Division and others [1987 ALL. L.J. 416] this Court held that under Section 17(3) (b) the licencing authority may suspend or revoke a licence if it becomes necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. In this case no report was lodged against the licensee indicating that he had used the gun in the incident which led to the breach of public peace or public safety. It was held that there must be some positive incident in which the petitioner participated and used his gun which led to breach of public peace or public safety and in the absence of the use of the gun by the licencee against the security of public peace or public safety the licence of the gun could not be suspended or revoked. The relevant paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment in Ilam Singh (supra) are being reproduced as under: "4. The relevant paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment in Ilam Singh (supra) are being reproduced as under: "4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the view that the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to be without substance. Section 17(3) (b) of the Arms Act enacts that licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence or revoke the same if it becomes necessary for the security of public peace or the public safety. When once a person has been granted a licence and he acquires a gun, it becomes one of his properties. In the present case no incident of breach of security of the public peace or public sfety at the behest of the petitioner has been pointed out. Even no report was lodged against the petitioner indicating that he used his gun in the incident which led to the breach of public peace or public safety. Even though some reports might have been lodged but that could not be said to be a sufficient reason to cancel the licence." 5. There must be some positive incident in which the petitioner participated and used his gun which led to the breach of the public peace or public safety. In the absence of the use of the gun by the petitioner against the security of public peace or public safety the licence of the gun of the petitioner was not liable either to be suspended or revoked. The licensing authority as well as the Commissioner committed errors on the face of the record in cancelling the licence of the gun held by the petitioner in utter disregard of the provisions of Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act. In view of these facts the impugned orders cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed." 24. In Habib v. State of U.P. and others [2002 (44) ACC 783] this Court held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking licence of fire arm was not justified. Paragraph 3 of this judgment reads as under: "3. In Habib v. State of U.P. and others [2002 (44) ACC 783] this Court held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking licence of fire arm was not justified. Paragraph 3 of this judgment reads as under: "3. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this court reported in Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision reported in Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking the licence of fire arm has been set aside." 25. In Satish Singh v. District Magistrate, Sultanpur 2009 (4) ADJ 33 (LB), this Court elaborately explained what is detrimental to the security of the public peace or public safety and held that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Satish Singh case (supra) are being reproduced as under: "6. A plain reading of section 17 indicates that the arms licence can be cancelled or suspended on the ground that the licensing authority deems it necessary for security of the public peace or the public safety. In the present case, while passing the impugned order, neither the District Magistrate nor the appellate authority has recorded the finding as to how and under what circumstance, the possession of arms licence by the petitioner, is detrimental to the public peace or the public security and safety. Merely because criminal case is pending more so, does not seem to attract the provisions of section 17 of the Arms Act. To attract the provisions of section 17 of the Arms Act with regard to public peace, security and safety it shall always be incumbent on the authorities to record a finding that how, under what circumstances and what manner, the possession of arms licence shall be detrimental to public peace, safety and security. To attract the provisions of section 17 of the Arms Act with regard to public peace, security and safety it shall always be incumbent on the authorities to record a finding that how, under what circumstances and what manner, the possession of arms licence shall be detrimental to public peace, safety and security. In absence of such finding merely on the ground that a criminal case is pending without any mitigating circumstances with regard to endanger of public peace, safety and security, the provisions contained under Section 17 of the Arms Act, shall not satisfy. 7. Needless to say that right to life and liberty are guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the arms licences are granted for personal safety and security after due inquiry by the authorities in accordance with the provisions contained in Arms Act, 1959. The provisions of section 17 of the Arms Act with regard to suspension or cancellation of arms licence cannot be invoked lightly in an arbitrary manner. The provisions contained under Section 17 of the Arms Act should be construed strictly and not liberally. The conditions provided therein, should be satisfied by the authorities before proceeding ahead to cancel or suspend an arms licence. We may take notice of the fact that any reason whatsoever, the crime rate is raising day by day. The Government is not in a position to provide security to each and every person individually. Right to possess arms is statutory right but right to life and liberty is fundamental guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Corollary to it, it is citizen's right to possess firearms for their personal safety to save their family from miscreants. It is often said that ordinarily in a civilised society, only civilised persons require arms licence for their safety and security and not the criminals. Of course, in case the government feels that arms licence are abused for oblique motive or criminal activities, then appropriate measures may be adopted to check such mal-practice. But arms licence should not be suspended in a routine manner mechanically, without application of mind and keeping in view the letter and spirit of Section 17 of the Arms Act." 28. In Thakur Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and others reported 2013 (31) LCD 1460 (LB) this Court after referring to the earlier pronouncements in the case of Ram Murli Madhukar Vs. In Thakur Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and others reported 2013 (31) LCD 1460 (LB) this Court after referring to the earlier pronouncements in the case of Ram Murli Madhukar Vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 (16) LCD 905] and Habib Vs. State of U.P., 2002 ACC 783, held in paragraphs 10 and 11 as follows: "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 v. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 916) 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 pendency of a criminal case." 11. Further, this Court in the case of Habib v. State of U.P. 2002 ACC 783 held as under: "The question as to whether mere Involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. District Magistrate, Basti and Others, 1978 AWC 122 , wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision in Masi Uddin Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot, in any way, affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking the licence of fire arm has been set aside. The present impugned orders also suffer from the same infirmity as was pointed out by the Division Bench in the above mentioned cases. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench that these orders cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and are hereby quashed. The present impugned orders also suffer from the same infirmity as was pointed out by the Division Bench in the above mentioned cases. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench that these orders cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and are hereby quashed. There is yet another reason that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has been acquitted from the aforesaid criminal case and at present there is neither any case pending, nor any conviction has been attributed to the petitioner, as is evident from Annexure SA-I and II to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to have the fire-arm licence." 32. In Ghanshyam Gupta v. State of U.P. and others [ 2016 (34) LCD 3035 ] this Court has again held that the necessary ingredients to invoke jurisdiction of the licencing authority in terms of Section 17 were clearly lacking and no finding had been returned on the basis of materials produced in that regard by the licencing authority, which must justify passing of the order of cancellation. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is being quoted as under: "9. In a recent decision of Lucknow Bench of this court in Surya Narain Mishra v. Stae of U.P. and others, reported in 2015 (7) ADJ 510 , similar view has been taken by this Court relying upon subsequent decisions. Para-14 of the judgment is reproduced: "14. In the case of Raj Kumar Verma v. State of U.P., 2013 (80) ACC 231 this court in paragraph No.3 held as under:- "The ground for issue of show-cause notice, suspension and ultimately cancellation of the licence is that one and precisely one criminal case was registered against the petitioner. The District Magistrate has also held that the petitioner has been enlarged on bail. He has gone further to observe that if the licence remained intact, the petitioner, may disturb public peace and tranquility. The same findings have been given by the Commissioner, Unmindful of the fact that this Court is repeating the law of the land, but the deaf ears of the administrative officers do not ready to succumb the law of the land. The same findings have been given by the Commissioner, Unmindful of the fact that this Court is repeating the law of the land, but the deaf ears of the administrative officers do not ready to succumb the law of the land. The settled law is that mere involvement in a criminal case without any finding that involvement in such criminal case shall be detrimental to public peace and tranqulity shall not create the ground for the cancellation of Armed Licence. In Ram Suchi v. Commissioner, Devipatan Division reported in 2004 (22) LCD 1643, it was held that this law was relied upon in Balram Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2006 (24) LCD 1359. Mere apprehension without substance is simply an opinion which has no legs to stand. Personal whims are not allowed to be reflected while acting as a public servant. 36. In the present case the petitioner's licence was cancelled by the District Magistrate on the ground of pendency of criminal case against him. The petitioner was later on acquitted of the criminal case by order dated 17.1.2003. A perusal of the order of acquittal does not show the use of fire arm. After acquittal the very basis of the order of cancellation vanished. The finding of the District Magistrate as affirmed by the Commissioner, that it was not in the interest of public peace and the public security that the licence remained with the petitioner/licencee, is not based on any evidence/material, except the police reports which in their turn were in view of the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. On mere apprehension expressed in the impugned orders that the petitioner would misuse the fire arm and would extend threat to the persons of the weaker section of the society, the arm licence could not be cancelled." 18. On the basis of the aforesaid judgments as reproduced herein-above, the Court is of the opinion that the case of the present petitioner is on a much better footing, since in the present case no criminal case whatsoever has been lodged against the petitioner/ arm license holder at any point of time and only on the basis of apprehension that the fire arm could be used by her family members, the Arm License of the petitioner was cancelled. It is further clear from record that the license of the petitioner was cancelled on the sole ground of apprehension that the aforesaid Arm License could be misused by the husband and brother-in-law of the petitioner as stated above and as per record, the husband has already been acquitted in the criminal case itself, insofar as the brother-in-law (devar) is concerned, he is no more and hence the sole ground of cancellation, i.e., apprehension cannot stand firm. 19. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner has a prima facie case for the grant of reliefs as prayed by her in the present writ petition. 20. In view of the facts as stated above, the order dated 01.11.2019 passed by the Commissioner Bareilly Division Bareilly in Appeal No. 00614 of 2018 filed under Section 18 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 as well as the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Badaun in Case No. 08 of 2014 under Section 17-(3) of the Act of 1959 are liable to be set aside and are hereby set aside. 21. Writ petition stands allowed. 22. No order as to costs.