1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4564/2008 Sohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ......... Date of Order : 12th February, 2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Ramandeep Singh Kharlia for the petitioner. Mr. B.L.Tiwari, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders Annex.4 dated 01.05.2006 and Annex.6 dated 16.10.2007 passed by District Magistrate, Hanumangarh and the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner respectively. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are that the petitioner applied for Arms Licence in the year 1984 for .12 Bore DBBL Gun before the competent Licensing Authority 2 on the grounds that the petitioner is an agriculturist residing at 14, JWD Dhani, Pakka Bhadwa, Tehsil and District, Hanumangarh and in order to protect his crops from the wild animals as also for his personal safety. The Licensing Authority having satisfied with the reasons as submitted by the petitioner granted the Licence No.31/84 for .12 Bore DBBL Gun and on grant of licence, the petitioner purchased the gun No.6731 and got endorsed on the licence. The licence granted in favour of the petitioner came to be renewed from time to time and lastly it was renewed up to 31.12.2008. There arose some dispute with regard to land between the petitioner and one Manphool Ram and a crime report for the offences under Sections 447, 323 and 427 IPC came to be registered in the year 1993 and Criminal Case No.28/93 was registered, however, ultimately the said crime report culminated in acquittal of the petitioner by the Competent Court having jurisdiction to try the said crime report vide Annex.P-2 i.e. the Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. According to the petitioner, again an unfounded case was registered against the petitioner for similar offences i.e. 447, 430, 323/34 IPC which too culminated in the acquittal of the petitioner vide Annex.3 by the order of competent Court having jurisdiction to try the case. The respondent District Magistrate by order dated 01.05.2006 cancelled the Arms Licence issued in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the crime reports noticed above which 3 undisputedly resulted in acquittal of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner it is not the case of the respondents that allowing the petitioner to keep the Arms under a valid licence would endanger the public safety and peace. There has not been any allegation of concealment, misrepresentation in obtaining the licence and misuse of the Arms. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Khem Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2005 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 907, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that the Licensing Authority may revoke a licence if it deems necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. The power of suspension of Arms licence is necessary concomitant of power of revocation for effective control and regulation as also for the security of the public peace and public safety. Such a power has to be exercised with great circumspection. The satisfaction of the authority has to be objective and must be based upon relevant material. Mere fact that some reports have been lodged against the licence holder is not sufficient for cancelling the licence. A similar view was taken by this Court in Saheb Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.387/2008 decided on May 12, 2008. In the instant case, neither the Licensing Authority nor the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the 4 cancellation/ revocation of the licence is necessary for the public peace and safety and therefore, in absence of any such finding, the orders impugned cannot sustain and are liable to be set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned Annex.4 dated 01.05.2006 and Annex.6 dated 16.10.2007 passed by District Magistrate, Hanumangarh and the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner respectively are quashed and set aside and the Arms Licence No.31/84 granted in favour of the petitioner is restored. If the petitioner has deposited the gun on cancellation of the licence, same may be returned to the petitioner. Stay petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp