DHARAMPAL RAMNARAYAN AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner was holding a revolver, licence bearing No. 456/viii/p/1983 for a period of one year. The licence was renewable for the same period after its expiry in accordance with section 15 (3) of the Indian Arms Act. The petitioner filed an application for renewal of the licence on 16-6-1984. As alleged by the petitioner, without hearing the petitioner the District Magistrate contrary to the provisions of section 15 (3) of the act by order dated 13-8-1984 rejected the application without recording reasons for rejection. The said order was impugned in an appeal filed under section 18 of the Indian Arms Act. The said appeal proved futile, therefore, the petitioner filed a representation to the State Government, but as the same was rejected, petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) SHRI Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of the order passed by the competent authority i. e. the District Magistrate would show that the order passed by it, is ex facie, illegal and is contrary to the provisions of section 15 (3) of the Act. He also submits that the authorities on which the reliance was placed by the appellate authority are no more good law in view of the pronouncement of the judgment of the Supreme Court and larger bench of this Court. He submits that where the statute provides that the reasons have to be recorded then it is mandatory for the authority to record the reasons. He also submits that the development of the law clearly establishes that a person is entitled to be heard and is also entitled to know about the material which is required to be used against him.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Khaskalam, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents, submits that the division bench judgment, reported in 1960 MPLJ 100, Moti Miyan Azim Miyan v. Commissioner Indore Division clearly settles the controversy at rest and if following that judgment the appellate authority and/or the State Government have confirmed the order passed by the Licensing Authority, this Court would not be justified in interfering with the order.