ORDER
Hari Lal Agrawal, J.
1. This application arises out of an order passed by the licensing authority cancelling the petitioner’s licence for a D. B. B. L. gun.
2. An application for cancellation was made by one Rama Nand Singh to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, on the ground that the petitioner had attempted to kill him by the gun in question. This complaint resulted in the initiation of an enquiry by the licensing authority and a report was called for from the Superintendent of Police which has been referred to in the appellate order of the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division, Annexure-4. The report of the Police supported the allegation of the complainant, Rama Nand Singh, that the petitioner was involved in Sabour P. S. Case No. 1(9)77 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police report, further indicated that the complainant’s family was also associated with criminals who was also a licensee. Acting upon that report the licensing authorities cancelled the licence of both the parties. 1 find that in the eleventh paragraph of the order, the teamed Commissioner has observed that both the parties were involved in litigation and criminal cases and, thus, there was an apprehension that they were likely to misuse the fire arm so much so that in the criminal case, the allegation is that the petitioner had used the fire arm.
3. Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act empowers the licensing authorities to revoke a licence if it is deemed necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. It was contended by Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that there was no finding in the orders of the licensing authority that revocation of petitioner’s licence was for the purpose of the security of the public peace or for public safety. As, in the view, of the learned Counsel, those expressions must be given a wider import and cannot relate to such an individual act, at all, to revoke the power of cancellation or suspension of a licence.
4. Learned Advocate General, appearing for the State, on the other hand, placed reliance on a single Judge decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Riazat Hussain v. Commr., Allahabad Division 1975 Cri LJ 654 where on reference to the facts found by the licensing authority for cancellation of the licence it was observed that the satisfaction of the licensing authority was not justiciable.
I find myself unable to accept this wide expression enunciated by the learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court but at the same time I do not feel persuaded in this case, as, acting under the writ jurisdiction, it is not. permissible or this Court to substitute itself in place of the authorities and examine the sufficiency of the reasons for cancellation of the licence. I find support for this view from a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sudhansu Kanta Acharyya v. State of Bihar AIR 1954 Pat 299 : 1954 Cri LJ 951. ,
5. The facts found and noticed in the appellate order do furnish sufficient ground to show that the action of the authority was within the ambit of his jurisdiction. And therefore, I do not find it possible to interfere with the order. I also do not find any substance in the argument advanced by Mr. Chandra Shekar, that until a judgment of conviction is recorded in the criminal case, the licensing authority should not-‘and could not have, in law, cancelled the licence. In my view, this is a j very wide proposition and in the circumstances prevailing in this part of the country, to accept this kind of submission would lead to a great anarchy as criminal trial may take several years before a licensee, who is prima facie found to have indulged in some criminal act, is brought to book and in the meantime to allow him to carry the weapon for repeating the offences and, thus, terrorising the public as Well.
6. I would, however, make an observation that in case the petitioner is found not guilty in flip criminal case at the trial, he may make an application for renewal of his licence before ‘ the licensing authority and the licensing authority will pass orders in accordance with late.
7. With the observations made above, the application is dismissed.