- (1.) THE petitioner, Masi uddin, held a licence for possessing a D.B. B.L. gun. It was granted to him in 1967. It was granted by the District Magistrate, Allahabad. Thereafter he purchased one D.B.B.L. gun No. A/4, 4517 (Indian). On September 28, 1969 the District Magis trate, Allahabad served a notice on him under "the Arms Act, 1959. The notice directed him to surrender the licence and the gun to the Station Officer, Nawabganj. It also directed him to show cause why his gun licence should not be cancelled. Meanwhile, the District Magistrate sus pended the licence.
(2.) THE petitioner showed cause. Thereafter by his order, dated 17th July, 1969, the District Magistrate cancelled the licence. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order. The Commissioner, Allahabad, dismissed the appeal. S. Counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. N. Singh has questioned the validity of the aforesaid orders on two grounds. One, the petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity of showing cause against the cancellation of the licence; two, the reason assigned for cancellation of the licence is outside the ambit of Section 17 of the Arms Act. After a licence is granted, (he right to hold the licence and possess a gun is a valuable individual right in a free coun try. The security of public peace and public safety is a valuable social interest. Section 17 shows that Parliament had de cided that neither of the two valuable inte rests should unduly impinge on the other. Section 17 seeks to establish a fair equili brium between the two contending inte rests. It says: Hear the licensee first; and then cancel the licence "if necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety". True, there is no express provision for hearing. But the nature of the right affected, the language of Section 17, the grounds for cancellation, the re quirement of a reasoned order and the right of appeal plainly implicate a fair hearing procedure. (Jai Narain Rai v. Dis trict Magistrate, Azamgarh, 1965 All LJ 994 = (AIR 1966 SC 265)), while cancel ling a licence, the District Magistrate acts as a quasi-judicial authority.
(3.) SRI Singh's grievance is that neither the petitioner has been heard nor has the licence been cancelled as it was found "necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety.";