NANEPPA Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DIVISION
LAWS(KAR)-1966-6-10
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on June 28,1966

NANEPPA Appellant
VERSUS
DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DIVISION Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

HAMZA BIN OMER ALIAS ZAFAR VS. COMMISSIONER CITY POLICE HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2002-3-104] [REFERRED TO]
DIGAMBAR PANDA VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(ORI)-1969-9-9] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Somnath Iyer, J. - (1.)This Writ Petition is directed against an order made by the Additional District Magistrate Kolar, on December 3, 1963 by which he cancelled a licence granted to the petitioner for possession of a double barrel gun This order made by the Additional Distric) Magistral? was confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner in an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act.
(2.)The argument maintained before us bv Mr Ranga Rao appearing for the petitioner is that the order made by the Licensing Authority, namely the Additional District Magistrate, was without power since before he cancelled the petitioner's licence, he gave no opportunity to the petitioner to make a representation against the cancellation of the licence. He contended, in addition, that the Divisional Commissioner mentioned in the course of Ms order many facts in support of the order by which the licence was revoked, which, the petitioner had no opportunity to meet. (8) The order made by the Licensing Authority cancelling the petitioner's licence reads: MEMO "In the circumstances reported by the S. P., Kolar, the arms licence standing in the name of Sri Nanappa, son of Narayanappa, of Sadali village, Sidlaghatta Taluk, is cancelled.'
(3.)The denunciation made of this order by Mr. Ranga Rao was that the Licensing Authority gave no reasons in support of his order beyond making a vague reference "to the circumstances reported by S. P.. Kolar" It was said that it was the duty of the Licensing Authority to make that report available to the petitioner and to call upon him to show cause why on the basis of the allegations contained in that report, the license should not be revoked under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act (6) Mr. Shantharajn, the learned Government Pleader, however, contended that there was nothing in Section 17(3) which authorises the revocation of the license, to make available to the holder of a licence any opportunity to make any representation against the cancel lation of the licence (6) The relevant part of Section 17 is Sub-section (3) of that section which authorises the Licensing Authority to revoke a licence for any one of the reasons which clauses (a) to (e) of that sub-section incorporate We are of the opinion that notwithstanding there being nothing in Section 17 which enjoins the Licensing Authority to afford the holder an opportunity to show cause why the licence should not be revoked, it is the duty of the Licensing Authority to make that opportunity available to him (7) The Licensing Authority could revoke a licence only if such revocation was justified for any of the reasons contained in Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-section (3) of Section 17 Such revocation is possible where under Clause (a) the holder of the licence was prohibited from acquiring or being in possession of a fire arm, or is of unsound mind or for any reason unfit for a licence under the Act. Likewise the revocation becomes permissible when the interests of public peace and public safety demand such revocation under Clause (b) Then again If the licence was obtained by suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information it could be revoked under Clause (c): under Clause (d) a contravention of the condition of the licence would entail such revocation and finally failure in comply with a notice under Sub-section (1) requiring the holder of the licence to deliver up the licence would also be a ground for revocation.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.