IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 4 of 2009. Krishan Bihari Niranjan S/O Shri Mohan Singh, presently posted as Lecturer (Hindi) Government Inter College, Rajgadhi, District Uttarkashi. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Secretariat, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. Commissioner Garhwal Division, Garhwal at Pauri. 3. District Magistrate, District Uttarkashi. …Respondents. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P.Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Date August 28, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. 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 impugned order dated 9-5- 2008 passed by the District Magistrate Uttarkash and the order dated 20-11-2008 passed by Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Camp at Dehradun in Appeal No. 02 of 2007-08 Shri Krishan Bihari Niranjan Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition). Further prayer for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the arms licence No. 938/99 (G.S.) of revolver 32 non-prohibited (N.P.) bore No. FG-5508 issued in favour of the petitioner has been made. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioner, are that by the impugned order dated 4-5- 2008 passed by the District Magistrate Uttarkashi, the arm licence of the petitioner was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to deposit revolver 32 N.P. Bore No. FG-5508 in the Sadar Malkhana. A perusal of the record shows that the arm licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate Uttarkashi on a complaint made by Smt. Mamta Niranjan, the wife of the petitioner, on the ground that a proceeding under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. is pending 2 in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhatwari (Uttarkashi) between the husband and the wife and the petitioner has threatened the complainant-wife of dire consequences. Accordingly, the District Magistrate on the ground of apprehension that there may be a quarrel between the husband and wife and on the basis of proceedings under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. cancelled the arm licence of the petitioner by his order dated 4-5-2008. Aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, which was registered as Appeal No. 2/2007- 08. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20-11-2008 observing that the petitioner-appellant usually beats his wife by threatening her by his licensed revolver of dire consequences, which gave rise to the present writ petition. In this writ petition, Mrs. Mamta Niranjan was impleaded as respondent no.4 but the respondent no. 4 has neither put in appearance in this case nor has filed any counter affidavit. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are not based on any concrete or reliable evidence and the ground on which the arm licence of the petitioner has been cancelled by the District Magistrate/Collector is not tenable in the eye of law. Learned counsel has urged that there is no finding on record that there is any likelihood to endanger the public peace or public safety. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Mohd. Sattar Vs. Collector Haridwar [2010(1) U.D., Page 82], wherein the authority concerned must record its subjective satisfaction that there is apprehension to public peace or public safety if the arm licence of the person concerned is not suspended. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Iftikhar Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others [2002(1) JIC 501(Allahabad)] has held that cancellation of arm licence on the ground of involvement in criminal is not justified. 3 I have perused the impugned order dated 4-5-2008 passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Uttarkashi. The impugned order has been passed merely on the basis of a challani report under Sections 151/107/116 Cr.P.C. lodged on a complaint made by the wife of the petitioner. The complainant Mamta Niranjan has not put in appearance in the present writ petition and no counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf despite sufficient service. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that unless the essential ingredients as laid down in sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act are fulfilled and the licensing authority had recorded its subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of apprehension to public peace or public safety if the arm licence of the petitioner is not revoked, the order of cancellation of arm licence is not justified. I am also of the view that merely because the petitioner is involved in a criminal case would not be a sufficient ground for cancellation of the arm licence of the petitioner. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 4-5-2008 passed by the District Magistrate Uttarkashi as well as the order dated 20-11-2008 passed by the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Camp Dehradun in appeal cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The arm licence of the petitioner No. 938/99 (G.S.) shall be restored by the District Magistrate Uttarkashi after getting the necessary formalities completed by the petitioner and the licensed revolver 32 N.P. Bore No. FG-5508 shall be returned to the petitioner after completion of formalities in that regard expeditiously, within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP