Suspension of Firearm license requires recorded satisfaction of threat to public peace, not mere criminal pendency.

The petitioners challenged two orders dated 10.09.2025 issued by the Collector, Gwalior, which suspended their firearm licenses until the completion of a pending criminal trial.

The suspension was based on a 2021 criminal case involving charges of simple assault, abusive language, and criminal intimidation under the IPC.

The petitioners argued that the licensing authority failed to provide required findings that the suspension was necessary for public peace or safety.

1. Whether the licensing authority is required to record a specific finding regarding threats to public peace or safety before suspending a firearm license under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act.

2. Whether the mere pendency of a criminal case, without evidence of weapon misuse or a specific threat to public order, is sufficient grounds for license suspension.

The Court applied Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, which defines the specific contingencies under which a license may be suspended or revoked.

It relied on the principle from Abdul Saleem v. State of M.P. that "public peace and safety" refers to public tranquility rather than individual law and order issues, and that licenses cannot be revoked arbitrarily just because a criminal case is pending.

Further, it cited Gajendra Singh v. State of M.P., establishing that a licensing authority must provide a reasoned discussion on why a person's conduct is dangerous to the public to satisfy the test of reasonableness.

The Court observed that the Collector’s orders were based solely on the assumption that the petitioners' involvement in a criminal case made future misuse of firearms likely.

However, the Court noted that the licensing authority failed to record any actual findings that the petitioners posed a present threat to public peace or safety as mandated by Section 17(3)(b).

Relying on precedent, the Court distinguished between "law and order" (affecting individuals) and "public order" (affecting the community), noting that the 2021 assault case did not demonstrate a reach sufficient to disturb public tranquility.

Because the impugned orders lacked specific reasoning and failed to show how the possession of the arms was detrimental to the public, the Court found them to be cryptic and legally unsustainable.

The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Collector's suspension orders, and remitted the matter back to the Collector, Gwalior.

The authority was directed to conduct a fresh consideration on the merits, providing the petitioners an opportunity to be heard and issuing a reasoned order in accordance with the law.