IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1231 (M/S) of 2005 Jai Singh …Petitioner Versus Commissioner Garhwal Mandal & another…Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Sudhir Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kailash Tiwari, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was granted an arms licence in the year 1973 and, since then, his licence was being renewed. A First Information Report under Section 147, 332 I.P.C. read with Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act was lodged against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have beaten up the police personnel. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court by imprisonment till the rising of the court and fine of Rs.1500/- on each count of the charge and in default simple imprisonment for 15 days. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was partly allowed and the fine of Rs.1500/- was reduced to Rs.500/-. It transpires that the petitioner thereafter preferred a criminal revision, which was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 8th September, 2006. Based on the conviction of the petitioner by the trial court, the District Magistrate, Uttarkashi, passed an order dated 17.10.1999 holding that in view of the conviction of the petitioner, it would not be in public interest to allow the petitioner to carry or use the weapon and accordingly, by the impugned order the licence of the petitioner was revoked on the ground of public interest. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal, which was also 2 dismissed on the ground of delay. Consequently, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. More than six years have elapsed and the State authorities in its lackadaisical manner has chosen not to file the counter affidavit. The Court has perused the impugned order and finds that the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground of public interest. Under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, a licence can be revoked on the grounds mentioned therein. For facility, the relevant provision of Section 17(3) of the Act is extracted hereunder: “17.(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.” 3 A perusal of the aforesaid provision would indicate that merely on the ground of public interest the licence cannot be cancelled. Section 17(3) (b) which is closest to the case of the petitioner indicates that the licensing authority can revoke the licence if it finds that security of the public peace or public safety is being breached. Public peace or public safety is different and distinct from public interest. The arms licence cannot be cancelled on the ground of public interest. Something more is required to be stated by the authority while canceling the licence on the ground of public interest. The mere fact that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 147, 332 I.P.C. read with Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act does not mean that the licence invariably has to be cancelled. There are other factors which the authority is required to consider. One such factor, which is indicative for consideration, is whether the weapon was used in the commission of crime or not, which, in the instant case, was absent. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that the ground for cancellation of the arms licence does not exist and is not contemplated under the Act. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 11-11-2011 Salim/