1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 7137/2007 Puran Singh 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. Vipin Makked 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.3 dated 29.03.2007 and Annex.4 dated 21.08.2007 passed by District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar and the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner respectively. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner is an agriculturist having agricultural land in Chak No. 13 L.N.P.-II, Tehsil and District Sri Ganganagar. The petitioner applied for Non-prohibited Gun Licence before the Licensing Authority in the year 1961 for 2 protection of his crops from the wild animals which was issued in the year 1961 being licence No. 234/61 and thereupon the petitioner purchased the gun and got endorsed on the said licence No.234/61. The licence granted to the petitioner came to be renewed from time to time. By order Annex.2 dated 2.8.2004, the District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, the Licensing Authority, in exercise of the powers under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 suspended the licence for six months which came to be further extended. The petitioner applied for renewal of the Arms Licence which came to be rejected by order dated 29.3.2007 Annex.3 as also cancelled the licence issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order dated 29.03.2007 by way of an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner which too came to be dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 21.8.2007. Hence this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the material on record. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was granted Arms Licence to possess Non- Prohibited Gun way back in the year 1961 and for more than 40 years, the petitioner was continuously holding the gun under a valid licence. However, a criminal case for the offences under Sections 447, 336, 147, 148 and 149 IPC came to be registered 3 against the petitioner and others being Crime Report No.59/99, on the basis of which, the Superintendent of Police communicated the District Licensing Authority that in relation to land dispute, there is likelihood of breach of peace, upon which, by order dated 2.8.2004 the Arms Licence issued in favour of the petitioner came to be suspended in view of Crime Report No.59/99. In the meantime, the petitioner applied for renewal of the Arms Licence and ultimately the licence came to be cancelled. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the said crime report, the offences are for simple trespass under Section 447, 147, 148 and 149 IPC etc. in which neither there is involvement of the gun nor the gun was alleged to have been used and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Licensing Authority may revoke a licence if it deems necessary for the security of public peace and safety, whereas in the instant case, neither the Licensing Authority nor the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the cancellation of licence is necessary for the public peace or public safety. 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 4 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 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.3 dated 29.03.2007 and Annex.4 dated 21.08.2007 passed by District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar and the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner respectively are quashed and set aside and the Arms Licence No.234/61 granted in favour of the petitioner in the year 1961 and the application seeking 5 renewal of the same are restored. The Licensing Authority may pass appropriate order on the renewal application. Stay petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp