THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1943 of 2010. Tarun Kumar S/O Gyanendra Kumar, R/O Village Mehwar Kalan, P.S.Kotwali, Roorkee, District Haridwar. … Petitioner. Vs. District Magistrate Haridwar, Office at Vikas Bhawan Roshnabad, Haridwar, district Haridwar. …Respondent. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.C.Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the respondent. Date November 19, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 9515 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the show cause notice dated 15-11-2010 issued by the respondent (contained as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition), whereby the revolver licence no. 1891 of the petitioner has been suspended with immediate effect vide order passed in Case No. 56 of 2010, State Vs. Tarun Kumar, under Section 17 of the Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali, Roorkee, district Haridwar. According to the petitioner, an F.I.R. was lodged with the Police Station Gang Nahar, Roorkee as Case Crime No. 324 of 2010 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 and 323 IPC by Jahangir on 24-10-2010 wherein the petitioner and one other person have been named as an accused. Another FIR was lodged by one Sanjay Saini as Case Crime No. 325 of 2010 on 24-10-2010 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427 and 436 IPC against 8 to 10 unknown persons regarding the same incident. Thus, there is a cross version of the incident which took place on 24-10-2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per allegations made in the F.I.R., the petitioner is alleged to have been 2 involved in the incident and has used Lathi, Dandas and sharp-edged weapon and there is no allegation of use of fire arm by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that by the impugned order the arm licence of the petitioner has been suspended by the respondent while issuing show cause notice to the petitioner, therefore, without considering the reply to the show cause notice, no adverse order should have been passed in the matter. According to him, the approach of the District Magistrate Haridwar in suspending the licence on likelihood of misuse of firearm in future is not proper and tenable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of “Ashiq Hussain Vs. Commissioner, Moradabad Division and others” [2010(1) ACR 419] wherein it has been held that mere involvement in a solitary criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of a firearm licence. In the case of “Jageshwar Vs. State of U.P. and others” [2009(3) ACR 3051], the Allahabad High Court has held that the licence of fire arm cannot be suspended on the ground of likelihood of misuse firearm. It appears that so far the petitioner has not filed reply/objection against the show cause notice issued by the District Magistrate. Without entering into the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to file objection against the show cause notice before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate Haridwar after hearing the petitioner shall pass appropriate order in the case. Till then the impugned suspension order shall be kept in abeyance. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP