Amar Sinha vs District Magistrate and Another

Binod Kumar Roy, J.—The Petitioner has come up before this Court for issuance of an appropriate writ or order quashing an order passed by the District Magistrate, Munger (Respondent No. 1), as contained in Memo No. 6155 dated 15th October, 1 82, appending its copy Annexure-3 to the writ application, issuing notice to the Petitioner to show cause as to why his gun licence No. 4 of 1981 be not cancelled u/s 17(3) of the Arms Act, after suspending his gun licence and directing him to deposit his gun as well the said licence in the Kotwali Police Station within two days of the receipt of the said order.

The pretrial of the relevant facts lie in a very short compass.

It has been asserted by the Petitioner to the effect that before suspending his gun, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity to show cause and thus there has been utter violation of the principles of natural justice and that the allegations mentioned in the notice are for collectoral purpose and oblique motive, besides in the investigation by the police were found to be far from truth

No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents refuting the said assertions.

Mr. Radha Mohan Prasad submits that from perusal of the impugned order (Annexure-3), it is clear that the Petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before suspending his gun licence and thus there has been a violation of principle of natural justice as held in Nripendra Narayan Roy v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1974 P.L.J.R. 296, and thus the said order is liable to be quashed.

In 1974 P.L.J.R. 296 supra it was held as follows:

...even an order of revocation or suspension on any ground would be bad if the licensee is not afforded an opportunity of being heard in the matter before the suspension or revocation of his licence.

In the decisions of Harisingh Harnamsingh Khalsa Vs. E.F. Deboo and Another, and Labh Singh Chattar Singh Vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Amble Division, Ambala and Another, it has been held that an opportunity of hearing must be given while passing an order u/s 17(3) of the Arms Act and that as per our Full Bench quoted below legislature has made no distinction between suspension and revocation.

In Kapildeo Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others, a Full Bench of our High Court observed hus:

...It is not the pendency of any and every criminal case which would inflexibly warrant the suspension or revocation of a licence validly grantel. A criminal case may range from a paltry traffic offence to the most horrendous capital crime. Whilst the pendency of the format may hardly provide an adequate basis u/s 17(3), in the case of the latter after notice and hearing of the explanation such action may well become necessary.

X X X

It has to be kept in mind that the prescribed statutory conditions for suspension and revocation of a licence are identical. The provisions of Clauses (a)(b)(c) and (d) of Sub-section (3) are with absolute uniformity applicable to the grounds for suspension as well as for revocation of a licence.

(Emphasis added).

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents does not dispute the aforementioned propositions of law.

In fairness to Mr. Radha Mohan Prasad, I must stale that he also tried to attack the impugned order on the ground of malafide but later on confined his argument to the ground of violation of principle of natural justice.

The law as laid down by the Division Bench and the Full Bench decision of this Court referred to above is binding on me and this for the reason aforementioned, I am of the view that only the portion of the impugned order suspending the gun licence of the Petitioner as contained in Annexure-3 is bad in law and that part of the order is quashed leaving the authority to proceed in accordance with law. No mandamus need issue as the Petitioner can retain his gun as the suspension order was already stayed by this Court.

Let a writ in the nature of certiorari issue accordingly. The rule is made absolute but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.