S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kripa Shankar Singh, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.1996 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar as affirmed by the appellate authority vide its order dated 17.11.1997.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the Divisional Commissioner (Appellate authority) has passed a cryptic order without addressing himself to the various points raised in the memo of appeal, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure -5 to the writ petition. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that licence in the instant case was granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Mol, Nagaland prior to the Government order dated 5.12.1989 bringing about certain amendments in the Arms Rules the effect of which was that the Deputy Commissioner ceased to be the appropriate licensing authority for whole country. The argument is that since the licence was granted prior to amendment in the Rules, it would not have invalidated the licence on account of certain subsequent amendments in the Rules conferring power on state Government to grant licence valid for the whole country. Similarly in respect of other charges mentioned in the order passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, Sri Ashok Khare urged that the points raised in the memo of appeal were not adverted to and the appeal was decided in cryptic manner without examining the grievances of the petitioner. Learned standing counsel urged that the Divisional Commissioner was not obliged to pass a detailed order in case it was to confirm the order passed by the Licensing Authority. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the provisions contained in Section 17 to the Arms Act, I am of the considered view that the appellate authority was under obligation to address itself to the points raised in the memo of appeal and to decide the appeal on merits after proper self direction to the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. It cannot be gainsaid that the power of the appellate authority is co -extensive with the power of Licensing Authority. The question that the licence was granted in the instant case before amendment in the Rules was not adverted to by the Divisional Commissioner. In the circumstance of the case, therefore, the impugned order dated 17.11.1997 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner is not sustainable in law. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.11.997 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Divisional Commissioner to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law.;