S. K. Dhaon, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 29th October, 1987, passed by the District Magistrate. Banda, calling upon the petitioner to either produce an interim order of this Court or to deposit his firearms in the police station failing which he may render himself liable for prosecution under section 25 of the Arms Act.
(2.) THE District Magistrate, on 10th July, 1984, cancelled the licences held by the petitioner for a carbine and a gun. THE petitioner questioned the legality of this order by means of a writ petition in this Court. During the pendency of the petition this Court passed an interim order staying the operation of the order of the District Magistrate. However, on 4th March, 1986, this court disposed of the said writ petition finally with the following directions :- " In the circumstances we direct that the petitioner may file his objection or representation before the District Magistrate within a period of one month from to day which shall be considered on merits by the District Magistrate before passing any order against the petitioner. (Underlining by us). Subject to the above the writ petition is disposed of. " Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner has filed an objection/representation before the District Magistrate in pursuance of the afore quoted direction of this Court and the same is pending its consideration. Relying upon the portion of the order underlined by us above, learned counsel contended that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to deposit his fire arms at the police station. The submission is that by necessary implication this Court permitted the petitioner to retain his fire arms till his representation was disposed of by the District Magistrate. The submission, though attractive, is fallacious. This Court had maintained the order of the District Magistrate cancelling the licences of the petitioner. This Court had merely directed that the District Magistrate will grant a post decisional remedial hearing to the petitioner as the District Magistrate had passed the order cancelling the licences of the petitioner without affording him an opportunity of hearing. Following a Full Bench decision of this Court in Kailash Nath v. State of U. P., 1985 AWC 493 this Court gave such a direction. In Kailash Nath's case (supra) the controversy was whether the condition precedent to the passing of an order of the revocation of a licence for a fire arm was the giving of an opportunity of hearing to the holder of the licence. This Court took the view that in a given situation the cancellation of a fire arm licence without any prior notice to the holder thereof may be justified but the requirements of natural justice would not be satisfied until the person concerned was subsequently afforded an opportunity of hearing and making a representation against the order of revocation. It was emphasised that an order revoking a licence without affording an opportunity of hearing to the holder of the licence will be in the nature of a provisional action of immediate revocation of the licence. Therefore, the licensing authority must, by a notice to the licence holder, give him an opportunity to file objections against the preliminary order and after hearing him proceed to pass final order which may either affirm or revoke the provisional order. In other words, it is incumbent upon the licensing authority to refrain from attaching finality to the order of cancellation until the holder of the licence has been heard by such authority and his objections adjudicated. The licensing authority can also for the furtherance of his immediate remedial action exercise the incidental power of directing the licence holder to surrender his licence until the objections have been decided. It follows that in the event of the objections being allowed the licence as well as the firearm must be restored to the licence holder.
(3.) IN the present case, it is true that after revoking the licences of the petitioner the District Magistrate did not give him any notice for the purpose of affording him an opportunity of hearing. The District Magistrate stopped short of passing an order of revocation. But, it is equally true that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, did not issue any direction that the petitioner need not surrender his arms till the disposal of his objections/representation. The surrender of the arms by the petitioner was implicit in the order of the revocation of the licences. A separate order directing the petitioner to surrender his arms was not required to be given. Therefore, the District Magistrate was not required to pass an order to that effect. The net result is that the order of the District Magistrate revoking the licences of the petitioner continues to operate with full vigour. Section 3 of the Arms Act provides that no person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any fire arm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. This Court, while giving the aforesaid direction, could not and did not intend to provide a carte blanche to the petitioner to keep his arms without a licence in violation of the provisions of the law. Surely, this Court did not permit the petitioner to carry on an unlawful activity. By using the words underlined by us in the afore quoted direction, this Court clearly conveyed the idea that the District Magistrate will not pass a final order of the revocation of the licence before considering his objections/representation on merits.;