JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. 1. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28722 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellant was issued with Ext.P1 arms licence bearing No.P 709/KTM dated 23.08.2017 for possessing/holding 0.25 bore pistol for self-protection. The validity of the licence expired on 22.08.2025. According to the appellant, on 09.02.2024 at about 8.p.m., while he was attending the board meeting of Lions Club of Pala Spices Valley, Pala, he raised the matter of illegal removal of one member and also of the irregularities which lead to a wordy altercation and commotion. The appellant was assaulted by two members of the Club, who attempted to strangulate him, about which he filed Ext.P2 complaint dated 12.02.2024 before the 2 nd respondent, District Police Superintendent. In pursuance to that complaint, Ext.P3 FIR bearing Crime No.378 of 2024 under Sections 294(b), 341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC was registered at Pala Police Station. After the investigation, the police submitted a final report in the said crime, and the same is now pending as CC No.459 of 2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala. 2.1. The appellant further states that after getting information about Ext.P2 complaint, on the basis of the statement made by the 4 th accused in Ext.P3 FIR, a crime was registered against the appellant as Ext.P4 with the offences under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 323, 341, 294(b), 506(ii) r/w 149 of IPC. In that crime, police filed Ext.P5 final report, and the matter is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala, as CC.No.310 of 2024. 2.2. After the registration of Ext.P4 crime, the 1 st respondent Station House Officer forwarded Ext.P6 letter dated 22.02.2024, along with a copy of Ext.P4 FIR, to the 2 nd respondent District Police Superintendent, requesting to initiate appropriate legal action to cancel Ext.P1 arms licence of the appellant. Upon receipt of Ext.P6 letter, the 2 nd respondent, by Ext.P7 letter dated 06.03.2024, recommended further action for cancelling Ext.P1 arms licence. Upon receipt of Ext.P7 letter, the 3 rd respondent, District Collector, convened a personal hearing of the appellant on 22.03.2024. The appellant appeared before the 3 rd respondent and explained his part. Upon receipt of Ext.P6 letter, the 2 nd respondent, by Ext.P7 letter dated 06.03.2024, recommended further action for cancelling Ext.P1 arms licence. Upon receipt of Ext.P7 letter, the 3 rd respondent, District Collector, convened a personal hearing of the appellant on 22.03.2024. The appellant appeared before the 3 rd respondent and explained his part. However, by Ext.P8 order dated 19.07.2024, the 3 rd respondent revoked Ext.P1 gun licence issued to the appellant. On receipt of Ext.P8 order, the appellant preferred Ext.P9 appeal before the 4 th respondent Land Revenue Commissioner. By Ext.P10 order dated 21.07.2025, the 4 th respondent dismissed Ex.P9 appeal. Contending that the copy of the complaint dated 21.02.2024 submitted by the President, Lions Club of Pala Spices Vallely, Pala, which was referred in Ext.P8 order and also contending that Exts.P6 and P7 letters and Exts.P8 and P10 orders are passed without properly appreciating the contentions of the appellant and considering the materials on record, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.28722 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P8 and P10 orders, and also a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to receive the application for renewing Ext.P1 licence and to renew the same in accordance with law. 3. In the writ petition, the 3 rd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 26.08.2025 producing therewith Ext.R3(a) document. Paragraphs 3 to 8 of that counter affidavit read thus: “3. It is submitted that the officials of Lions Club of Pala Spice Valley had filed a complaint on 21.02.2024 against the petitioner stating that he threatened those present brandishing a gun during the Board meeting convened on 09.02.2024. They urged immediate action against the petitioner. The second respondent was instructed to conduct a comprehensive investigation into this matter and submit a report. True copy of the complaint dated 21.02.2024 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R3(a). 4. The 2 nd respondent has reported that Cr.202/2024 number case has been registered against the petitioner under Section 143 , 147, 148, 323, 341, 294(b), 506(II) r/w 149 IPC and 30 of Arms Act at Pala Police Station for displaying gun in a public place and requested to take necessary steps to revoke the license. 5. 4. The 2 nd respondent has reported that Cr.202/2024 number case has been registered against the petitioner under Section 143 , 147, 148, 323, 341, 294(b), 506(II) r/w 149 IPC and 30 of Arms Act at Pala Police Station for displaying gun in a public place and requested to take necessary steps to revoke the license. 5. As per the verification of the register, it is found that the petitioner was granted an arms license No. P- 709/KTM to hold a 0.25 Bore Pistol for self protection and it expires in 2025. The petitioner was heard on 22.03.2024. At the hearing, the petitioner requested that the license not be revoked as the incident detailed in the complaint registered by the-club officials did not occur and the complaint itself stemmed from allegations of corruption against them. 6. Upon examining the FIR copy and police report, it was seen that the allegations are that the petitioner had misused his gun license and violated its conditions. It was found that therefore the gun license granted to him should be revoked. The Arms license No.P709/KTM issued to the petitioner was cancelled as per Exhibit P8 Order No. DCKTM/1587/2024-H3 dated 19.07.2024. Against this order the petitioner filed Exhibit P9 appeal before the 4 th respondent. The 4 th respondent dismissed the appeal petition, upholding the order of the Licensing Authority by way of Exhibit P10. 7. The case of the petitioner in the Writ Petition is that even though in Exhibit P7 communication, the 2 nd respondent reported that the petitioner had raised threat in public place exhibiting a gun in public place there is no such allegation in Exhibit P4 crime. However Exhibit P4 clearly raises the allegation that the petitioner/first accused therein brandished his gun during the incident. This allegation is reiterated in the First Information Statement as well. The police has already submitted Exhibit P5 charge sheet. 8. The cancellation of license of the petitioner is warranted under Section 17 of the Act”. 4. To the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent, the appellant filed a reply affidavit dated 23.09.2025, producing therewith Exts.P11 and P12 documents. 5. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 26.09.2025 disposed of the writ petition. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of the judgment read thus: “3. 5. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 26.09.2025 disposed of the writ petition. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of the judgment read thus: “3. The 2 nd respondent was directed to conduct an investigation and file a report, based on the complaint dated 21.02.2024. The 2 nd respondent reported that crime 202 of 2024 has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 323, 341, 294(b), 506(ii) read with 149 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act at Pala Police Station for displaying a gun in a public place and requested for taking such steps to revoke the licence. The petitioner was heard before revocation, and the original authority, based on the above allegation, revoked the licence,which the appellate authority also confirmed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation under the provisions of the Arms Act was not included in the FIR. 5. The learned Government Pleader opposing the said contention argues that the chargesheet clearly mentioned the offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act, also that steps were taken for getting sanction for the prosecution of the said offence. 6. Under such circumstances, the revocation of the licence based on the allegations cannot be said to be illegal, warranting interference by this Court. However, fact remains that the sanction for prosecution in terms of Section 39 of the Arms Act is pending consideration. In case sanction is not granted for prosecuting the petitioner for the offence under the Arms Act, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the original authority which granted the licence for revoking the order of cancellation of the licence granted to the petitioner and for renewal of the licence granted to the petitioner, if so advised.” 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant is now before this Court with the instant writ appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Exts.P8 and P10 orders were passed by the 3 rd and 4 th respondents without properly appreciating the materials on record and the contentions of the appellant. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Exts.P8 and P10 orders were passed by the 3 rd and 4 th respondents without properly appreciating the materials on record and the contentions of the appellant. The learned counsel pointed out that, though it was based on Ext.P4 FIR and Ext.P5 Final Report the cancellation of Ext.P1 licence was suggested by the 1 st respondent, the offence under the Arms Act was not there in Ext.P4 FIR. From Ext.P5 Final report it could be gathered that no cognisance was taken by the learned Magistrate under Section 30 of the Arms Act. The learned counsel further argued that the version of the witnesses in the First Information statement annexed to Ext.P4 FIR and in Exts.P11 and P12 statements recorded by the police during the course of the investigation are contradictory to each other. No offence under the provisions of the Arms Act was made out from the First Information Statement, as well as Exts.P11 and P12 statements of the witnesses. Though the respondents relied on Ext.R3(a) complaint dated 21.02.2024, claimed as filed by the President of the Lions Club of Pala Spices Valley, a copy of such a complaint was not provided to the appellant before conducting the hearing by the District Collector or by the Land Revenue Commissioner. In short, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was without properly appreciating the documents available at that time, Exts.P8 and P10 orders were passed against the appellant. 9. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that from the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation by the police, it is evident that the appellant had exhibited his gun in a public place. Such an exhibition of a gun in a public place is contravention of the condition of the licence granted to him and hence, it was rightly cancelled by Ext.P8 order of the District Collector, which was confirmed in the appeal by the Land Revenue Commissioner. 10. We have carefully verified the materials on record and the rival submissions made at the bar. The appellant was granted Ext.P1 arms licence bearing No.P-709/KTM on 23.08.2017 with a validity from 23.08.2020 to 23.08.2025 for possessing a 0.25 bore pistol. 10. We have carefully verified the materials on record and the rival submissions made at the bar. The appellant was granted Ext.P1 arms licence bearing No.P-709/KTM on 23.08.2017 with a validity from 23.08.2020 to 23.08.2025 for possessing a 0.25 bore pistol. The said licence was later cancelled by the 3 rd respondent District Collector, on the basis of Ext.P7 letter dated 06.03.2024, sent by the 2 nd respondent District Police Superintendent, to him, stating about the registration of Ext.P4 FIR against the appellant. Ext.P9 appeal filed by the appellant was also ended in dismissal by Ext.P10 order of the 4 th respondent Land Revenue Commissioner. 11. In Ext.P6 letter dated 22.02.2024, it was alleged that the appellant exhibited the weapon in a public place and threatened that he would attack the board member. As per the said letter, the appellant uttered the threatening words to the Secretary and the President of the Club. While going through Ext.P8 order, we notice that the District Collector completely relied on Ext.P7 report of the 2 nd respondent District Police Superintendent, which was accompanied with Ext.P6 report of the 1 st respondent Station House Officer. He had not made any independent analysis of the statements of the witnesses or the allegations in the First Information Statement annexed to Ext.P4 FIR or Ext.P5 Final Report. Similar is the case of Ext.P10 order passed by the 4 th respondent Land Revenue Commissioner. In that order also a finding was arrived at with a cryptic analysis of the statements of the witnesses to the effect that the appellant has threatened the members of the club and attempted to manhandle them. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant, by inviting our attention to the First Information Statement annexed to Ext.P4, submitted that in that statement the complainant stated that he has only hearsay knowledge about the threatening words uttered by the appellant by showing his gun. So also, according to the learned counsel, from Exts.P11 and P12 statements of the witnesses, it can be gathered that the statements of the witnesses are contradictory to each other as far as the incident of showing of gun by the appellant. These contentions of the appellant are not seen appreciated either at the time of passing Ext.P8 order cancelling the licence or at the time of dismissing Ext.P9 appeal by Ext.P10 order by the Land Revenue Commissioner. 13. These contentions of the appellant are not seen appreciated either at the time of passing Ext.P8 order cancelling the licence or at the time of dismissing Ext.P9 appeal by Ext.P10 order by the Land Revenue Commissioner. 13. At this juncture, it is worth to note Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959, which provides punishment for contravention of licence or rule. The said section reads that whoever contravenes any condition of a licence or any provision of the Arms Act or any rules made thereunder, for which no punishment is provided elsewhere in the Arms Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. Section 30 of the Arms Act alone is incorporated in the criminal case registered against the appellant by way of an additional report. But what exactly is the contravention of the licence conditions committed by the appellant is not gatherable from the reading of the materials placed on record by either side. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of this Court in Jose Kuttiyany v. Land Revenue Commissioner , Tvm. and others [ 2015 (3) KHC 831 ] in support of her argument that mere pendency of a criminal case is not sufficient to revoke the licence. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said judgment read thus: “7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a license granted under the Arms Act cannot be cancelled on the ground of mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of the criminal trial. It was argued that apprehension of misuse of fire arm by the licensee cannot be readily inferred on account of a mere involvement in a criminal case. A reading of Section 17 of the Arms Act would indicate that the arms license can be cancelled or suspended if-the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or public safety to suspend or revoke the license. In the present case, while passing the impugned order, none of the authorities has recorded the finding as to how and under what circumstances the possession of arms license by the petitioner is detrimental to the public peace or public security and safety. In the present case, while passing the impugned order, none of the authorities has recorded the finding as to how and under what circumstances the possession of arms license by the petitioner is detrimental to the public peace or public security and safety. Merely because a criminal case is pending, the provisions of Section 17 of the Arms Act will not be attracted. 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 in what manner the‘ possession of arms license would be detrimental to public peace, safety and security. 8. In the absence of such finding, without any circumstances endangering public peace, safety and security, the provisions under Section 17 of the Arms Act shall not be pressed into service merely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. The right to life and liberty are guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the arms licenses are granted for personal safety and security after due enquiry by the authorities in accordance with the provisions contained in Arms Act, 1959. The provisions of the Arms Act with regard to suspension or cancellation of Arms license cannot be invoked lightly in an arbitrary manner. The provision should be construed strictly and not liberally. The conditions provided in the Statute should be satisfied by the authorities before proceeding ahead to cancel or suspend an arms license. The authorities have to record the finding based on material evidence with regard to breach of public peace, safety and security while cancelling the arms license.“ (underline supplied) 15. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the bar, in the light of the discussion made above, we find that while passing Ext.P8 order by the District Collector and Ext.P10 order by the Land Revenue Commissioner, the materials available as far as the crime registered against the appellant were not properly appreciated. The learned Single Judge failed to consider these aspects in their proper perspective while disposing the writ petition. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside, and the 4 th respondent has to be directed to reconsider the appeal filed by the appellant afresh. The learned Single Judge failed to consider these aspects in their proper perspective while disposing the writ petition. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside, and the 4 th respondent has to be directed to reconsider the appeal filed by the appellant afresh. In the result, without expressing anything on the legal and factual contentions raised by the parties, this writ appeal is disposed by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.28722 of 2025 and the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P10 order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the 4 th respondent Land Revenue Commissioner and the 4 th respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, after affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.