In Re: The State of Madras

Rajamannar C.J.

We are in entire agreement with Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., against whose order this appeal has been filed by Government, that it is incumbent on

the officer purporting to cancel the gun licence to first inform the licensee the grounds on which the cancellation is proposed and also to record in

Writing the grounds on which the cancellation is eventually made. This order must be communicated to the licensee, particularly because he has got

a right of appeal against the order of cancellation and he cannot properly put forward his contentions before the appellate tribunal, until he knows

why the cancellation is made. The early decision of Sutaba Rao J. in P. Narasimha Reddy Vs. District Magistrate, Cuddapah, , lays down the

correct principle to be followed in passing orders of cancellation, and, so far as we are aware, that principle has never been doubted. Rajagopala

Ayyangar J. has only followed that principle and applied it to the facts before him. The observations Of Rajagopolan J. in W. P. No. 449 of 1953

(Mad) (B), that reasons need not be communicated to the licencee necessarily lose much of their value Because the learned Judge has there not

considered the question keeping before him the right of appeal which has been conferred on the licensee whose Licence has to be cancelled.

We are surprised to find the Government setting up the plea that the order in question is not subject to interference under Article 226 of the

Constitution. Evidently the argument is that this is an administrative order. But it is obvious that this so called administrative order has interfered

with the fundamental right of a citizen to hold property, namely, the gun. Therefore the cancellation'' was the proper subject-matter of an

application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appeal is dismissed.