Arms licence cannot be cancelled merely on criminal-case pendency without reasoned public-safety findings.

The petitioner’s arms licence was suspended/cancelled by the Collector, District Datia, by order dated 13 April 2026, primarily on the basis of criminal cases registered against him and an apprehension of possible misuse of the licensed firearm.

The petitioner contended that the order did not record the satisfaction required under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, and did not establish that his conduct endangered public peace or public safety.

Although an appeal was available under Section 18 of the Arms Act, the High Court entertained the writ petition because the impugned order allegedly violated Section 17 and the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner had been issued a show-cause notice on 13 April 2026, but the licence-related order was passed on the same date, allegedly without granting an effective opportunity of hearing.

Whether the High Court could entertain the writ petition despite the alternative appellate remedy under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, where the impugned order allegedly violated Section 17 and the principles of natural justice.

Whether the Collector could suspend or cancel the petitioner’s arms licence merely on the basis of registered or pending criminal cases and an apprehension of possible misuse, without recording a specific finding that continuation of the licence endangered or was likely to endanger public peace or public safety under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959.

Whether the impugned order was vitiated for failure to provide the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing.

Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 permits suspension or revocation of an arms licence where such action is necessary for the security of the public peace or public safety; therefore, the licensing authority must record an independent and reasoned satisfaction showing how the licence-holder’s conduct has endangered or is likely to endanger public peace or public safety.

Mere registration or pendency of criminal cases, or a bald apprehension of possible misuse of the firearm, is insufficient without a specific finding and supporting material.

The Court relied on Padam Chand Gupta and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (order dated 7 July 2026), which in turn considered Abdul Saleem v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Gajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, and related authorities.

An alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the order is alleged to have been passed in breach of natural justice or in total derogation of the governing statutory provision.

The Court found that the Collector’s order was based principally on the criminal cases mentioned in the police report and on a general apprehension of possible misuse of the firearm, but did not contain any specific finding or adequate reasoning connecting the petitioner’s conduct—particularly his conduct after grant of the licence—with danger to public peace or public safety as required by Section 17(3)(b).

The Court also noted that the show-cause notice and the impugned order were both dated 13 April 2026, indicating that the petitioner had not been afforded an effective opportunity to submit and have his explanation considered before the decision was taken.

Applying the reasoning in Padam Chand Gupta, the Court held that the cryptic and unreasoned order could not be sustained, while expressly declining to adjudicate the merits of the criminal cases.

The matter was remitted to the Collector, District Datia, for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

The Collector was directed to provide an effective hearing, consider the status and nature of the criminal cases, their disposal if any, the petitioner’s conduct after grant of the licence, and all material bearing on public peace or public safety; the authority was required to record an independent and reasoned satisfaction under Section 17 and not rely merely on the registration or pendency of criminal cases or a general apprehension of misuse.

The exercise was directed to be completed preferably within eight weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the criminal cases or the petitioner’s ultimate entitlement to hold the arms licence.