Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE District Magistrate, Etawah, suspended the Petitioner's licence for a revolver by an order passed on 27 -1 -1967. The order states: The revolver licence issued to Shiv Mangal Singh of P.S. Bidhuna Distt. Etawah is hereby suspended. The S.P. has sent in an adverse report against him. S.O. Bidhuna will serve this order and get the weapon deposited in the Sadar Malkhana at once. SDM Bidhuna will enquire and report as to whether the licence should be cancelled. It appears that the Superintendent of Police had made a report against the Petitioner, on the basis of which this order has been passed during the pendency of an enquiry on the question whether the Petitioner's licence should be cancelled. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner went up in appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner on 24 -7 -1967. The Commissioner repelled the Petitioner's submission that the authorities had no power to suspend the licence during the pendency of an enquiry into the question whether the licence ought to be cancelled or not. That plea has been repeated in the present petition. But, it is unnecessary to go into this wider question because the petition succeeds on a different point.
(2.) UNDER Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, the licensing authority may suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence if any one of the five conditions mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub -section (3) of Section 17, is fulfilled. Under Sub -Section (5), the licensing authority has to record, in writing, reasons for the order. Thus, there are two conditions precedent for the exercise of the power of suspension of a licence. One is the recording of reasons for the order in Writing. This has to be done by the licensing authority. The other condition is that the case must fall within any one of the five clauses. Under Clause (b), action can be taken by the licensing authority if it deems necessary for the safety of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke a licence. For the Respondents, it was urged that the action in the present case was taken under this clause. But, it is clear that the licensing authority, namely, the District Magistrate in its order dated 21 -1 -1967, has not recorded any reasons for the conclusion that the order was necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. There is nothing in the order to suggest that the District Magistrate was satisfied about the existence of this ground. In any event, he has not recorded any reasons far coming to that conclusion.
(3.) THE case falls squarely within the ratio of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Beni Chand v. District Magistrate, Banda, 1953 AWR 248.;