1. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6380/2010 Ram Pratap Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 19.07.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Kishan Bansal, for the petitioner. ... The Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh vide his letter dated 8.5.2009 conveyed to the Collector, Hanumangarh to revoke firm-arm's licence granted to the petitioner looking to his old age and inability in maintaining the fire-arm. The Superintendent of Police also referred criminal background of petitioner in the communication aforesaid. While relying upon the opinion given by the Superintendent of Police and also the other ancillary factors, the Collector, Hanumangarh vide order dated 16.11.2009, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, cancelled his fire-arm licence No.02/69 DM, Sri Ganganagar, OS No.370/95 relating to the fire-arm 12-bore SBBL Gun No.2498. The order passed by the Collector, Hanumangarh came to be affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, on rejection of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. A challenge is given to the orders passed by the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner by 2. relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Khem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 2005(2) P.907, wherein this Court held that the Licencing Authority may revoke a licence, if it deem necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. The Division Bench in the case aforesaid also held that the satisfaction of the authority has to be objective and must be based upon relevant material. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reasons given by the Collector for revocation of licence are not sufficient as required under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959. I have gone through the orders passed by the Collector as well as the Divisional Commissioner. The Collector, Hanumangarh while revoking the licence of the petitioner in quite unambiguous terms stated that the petitioner is a man of high-temperament and is in the habit of indulging quarrels. The authority competent also observed that looking to the old age i.e. of 67 years, the petitioner is not competent to maintain the fire-arm adequately, thus, the chances of its misuse cannot be denied. The Appellate Authority also examined all the aspects of the matter and reached at a definite conclusion that the revocation of licence is based on sufficient reasons. The orders impugned are based on the 3. material supplied by the police authorities as well as by the other officers of the district administration. True it is, the petitioner has not been convicted for any of the offence but at the same time it is the position admitted that he suffered trials for several cases and his own kith and kins have made complaints against him. During the course of arguments, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that a property dispute is pending and that was the reason for making complaints. If it is so, then that is all the more better reason for revoking the fire-arm licence. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that sufficient reasons were available with the competent authorities to revoke the fire-arm licence, as such, the orders impugned do not suffer from any illegality and no interference is called for by this Court whilst exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ is accordingly dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Sanjay/-