J. M. L. Sinha, J. (for self and for D. M. Chandrashekhar, C. J.) - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Sheo Prasad Misra, hereinafter called the petitioner, praying that the order dated 13th of May, 1974, passed by the District Magistrate, Basti, and the order dated 20th July, 1974, passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur, in appeal may be quashed.
(2.) THE petitioner held a licence for a single barrel gun. On a report of the police, a notice was issued to him by the District Magistrate of Basti to show cause why his licence be not cancelled. THE petitioner filed objections in response to the notice. THE District Magistrate, however, held that, since there were several reports lodged against the petitioner and since the police reported that he was a man of bad character, it was not safe to allow the licencee to keep the weapon with him. THE District Magistrate further observed that the licencee was asked to deposit the gun which he did not do and had thereby contravened the orders of the licencing authority. On these two premises the District Magistrate passed the order cancelling the licence of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Magistrate, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. THE Commissioner, however, concurred with the District Magistrate and dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 20th of July, 1974. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid orders passed by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner, the petitioner has come up before this Court. The provision for cancelling a licence is contained in Section 17 subsection (3) of the Arms Act. A perusal thereof would show that the licencing Authority can revoke a licence if : (i) he considers it necessary for the security of the public peace or public safety to suspend or revoke the licence, or (ii) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, while there was material before the licencing authority, viz., the District Magistrate, to show that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner, there was neither any material to warrant a conclusion that it was necessary to cancel the licence for security of public peace or public safety, nor was a finding to that effect recorded. Learned Counsel referred us to a decision of this Court in case of Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573, where this Court held: "A licence may be cancelled, inter alia, on the ground that it is "necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety, to do so. The District Magistrate has not recorded a finding that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to revoke the licence. The mere existence of enmity between a licencee and another person would not establish the "necessary" connection with security of the public peace or public safety." In the case before us also the District Magistrate has not recorded any finding that it was necessary to cancel the licence for the security of public peace or for public safety. All that he has done is to have referred to some applications and reports lodged against the petitioner. The mere fact that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner could not form basis for cancelling the licence. The order passed by the District Magistrate and that passed by the Commissioner cannot, therefore, be upheld on the basis of anything contained in Section 17 (3) (b) of the Act.
(3.) THAT leaves us with clause (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 17. It is true that it is one of the conditions of a licence that the weapon should be delivered when the licencee is called upon to do so. It also appears on a perusal of the order passed by the District Magistrate that the petitioner was asked to deliver the gun, but he failed to do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however urged that no notice was served on him to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled for the reason of his having failed to deliver the weapon despite his having been called upon to do so. It is well established that proceedings under Section 17 of the Arms Act are quasi judicial proceedings. It was, therefore, necessary for the District Magistrate to have served a notice to that effect on the petitioner, if it was intended to cancel the petitioner's licence on the ground that he did not deposit the weapon despite having been called upon to do so and had thereby committed breach of the conditions of the licence. In case such a notice was given the petitioner could offer some plausible explanation for the same. It does not, however, appear from the order passed by the District Magistrate or from the order passed by the Commissioner that any such notice was issued to the petitioner. In the aforesaid view of the matter the order passed by the District "Magistrate and the Commissioner cannot be justified even under clause (d) of subsection (3) of section 17 of the Arms Act,;