Markandey Katju, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the cancellation of his gun licence vide order dated 6 -2 -1992 (annexure -2 to the writ petition), inter alia, on the ground that no prior opportunity of hearing was given before passing the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the authority passing the order has proposed giving a post -decisional hearing. The question before me is whether a post -decisional hearing in a matter regarding cancellation of a gun licence would be valid. In a 5 Judge Full Bench decision of this Court, Kashi Nath v. State 1985 AWC 493 it has been held that such a post decisional hearing would be valid The 5 Judge Full Bench in that case was considering the correction of an earlier 3 Judge Full Bench decision in C.P. Sahu v. State, 1984 AWC 145.
(2.) WITH great respect to these Full Bench decisions I am of the opinion that both of them are wrong. The reasons for my opinion are indicated below. In Balram Singh v. State : 1988 AWC 1481 a Full Bench or this Court held that a gun licence can validly be suspended during proceedings for its cancellation. Hence, if some immediate action is required (e.g. where it is apprehended that the gun may be misused or there is immediate apprehension of breach of law and order) a gun licence may be suspended and the gun may be temporarily seized by the appropriate authority pending proceedings for its cancellation. Hence, there is no need to cancel the licence without prior opportunity of hearing. Suspension of the licence would suffice.
(3.) NO doubt, in Menaka Gandhi v. Union : AIR 1978 SC 597 the Supreme Court permitted a post -decisional hearing, but that was in very exceptional circumstances. In that case it was held that a passport could be impounded without a prior hearing because if a pre -decisional hearing is insisted upon the very object of the order may be frustrated as the person may leave the country.;