B.L.Yadav, J. - (1.) THE main question involved in this writ petition is as to whether the arm obtained against a valid licence, in view of the provisions of Arms Act 1958 (for short, the Act) can be directed to be deposited, even though there was no infirmity in the licence, is the short question for our determination in the present petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE relief sought in the writ petition filed by Smt. Vidhya Devi under Article 226 of the Constitution is that the impugned order dated 29th December, 1978 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) may be quashed by issuing writ of certiorari. The factual matrix of the cases is that the petitioner is wife of one Sri Murli Monohar, Chaubey, the ex-ruler of Taron State in District Banda, and she was holding a valid licence for rifle under the Act she purchased rifle on 23rd September, 1978 from one Ram Siya Shukla, a valid licence holder. The petitioner, thereafter, moved an application on 25th September, 1978 to the District Magistrate that she had purchased the rifle and prayed for making proper entry to the same effect that she had already purchased the rifle in pursuance of the arm licence granted to her. Again she moved an application for reminder on 27th December. 1978 but to the utter surprise of the petitioner instead of making the entry tide District Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 29th December, 1978, which was quite vague and was to the following effect : seen The applicant he advised accordingly. If the weapon had been purchased be should return it to the dealer at once who in turn will intimate the office since the licence of the weapon has already been suspended. The applicant be advised to purchase a fresh weapon. The dealer will keep the weapon till fresh order. The aforesaid impugned order does not make any sense, as the facts are incorrect and it is based on ipse-dixit.
(3.) COUNTER-affidavit, has been filed on behalf of the State in para 4 of the counter-affidavit, the impugned order was supported, indicating that the licence of the vendor. Ram Siya Shukla has been suspended and he has not complied with the Rule 52 (2) of the Rules framed under the Act. Mr. Yatindra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner and vendor, Ram Siya Slhukla were holding valid licence for a rifle on the date she purchased the rifle as.d the vendor, Ram Siya Shukla was also holding valid licence As the licence has become property held by the petitioner, within the meaning of Articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution of India, the licence was his property and fundamental right. The impugned order contains incorrect statement off facts and does not contain reasons. The petitioner cannot be directed to deposit the rifle with the dealer as if licence of vender has already been suspended where as the correct facts are that on the date of purchase by the petitioner from Ram Siya Shukla vendor and the vendee both were having valid licences. Licence of the petitioner cannot be suspended without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As the impugned order affected rights of the petitioner per-decisional hearing was a must. The impugned order cannot be supported on the basis of averments in [para 4 of the counter-affidavit.;