- (1.)THE petitioner who used to hold licenses for two firearms has come up under Article 226 from two orders of the licensing authority dated respectively, 2-1-1959 and 27-11-1959, the former cancelling the licenses during their currency for license year 1958-59 and directing the deposit of the firearms at the proper police station, and the latter refusing to renew the licenses after their expiry in due course on the 31st March, 1959, the licensee having applied for renewal in ignorance or in intentional suppression of the earlier order of cancellation. The two orders are interconnected in the sense that a renewal was practically impossible after the cancellation, unless it was established by the ex-licensee either that the cancellation wag unjustified or that the cause of the cancellation had been removed. The grievance is that the licensing authority acted without jurisdiction, as it did not give reasons in writing for the cancellation, and further, the refusal to renew was mainly based on this cancellation. The prayer, therefore, is that the authority should be ordered to set aside the said orders, and directed to return the firearms on the renewed licenses.
(2.)THE questions for decision are, firstly, whether the petitioner's failure to avail of the right of appeal given under the rules, and the very considerable delay in coming to this Court (on 13-3-1960), have been satisfactorily explained; or a special case made out for this Court's interference in spite of the laches on the part of the petitioner; Secondly, whether besides recording the reasons, the licensing authority should communicate them to the licensee, and thirdly, whether the High Court in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, can consider the merits of the reasons, if any, recorded by the licensing authority in the manner indicated in the rulings of certain High Courts, (such as in Sardar Chand Singh v. Commr. Surdwan, AIR 1958 Cal 420 and Godha Singh Jabra Singh v. Dist. Magistrate, Ferozepore, AIR 1956 Punj 33. Finally, there is a factual issue in regard to the communication to the licensee of the cancellation order; but that can be disposed of very briefly.
(3.)THE facts of the case are simple. The petitioner who is a cultivator claiming a status, on which it is unnecessary to express any opinion, was holding licenses for one muzzle-loading gun and one double-barrel gun, which were current till the 31st March, 1959. Even during this period, the licensing authority (Additional District Magistrate) cancelled the licenses under Section 18 of the Arms Act and directed that the firearms should be deposited with the police. The order is dated 2-1-1959. A copy was sent through the police officers to the petitioner, the receipt for which has been signed by him; though he has denied this in the petition, he has in a later affidavit, tried to explain it away by asserting that he gave receipt for what he did not know-Therefore, we have to hold as a fact that the order was communicated to him as the letters show, in the beginning of February 1959. At the end of the license year the petitioner applied for renewal without referring to the cancellation. The renewal is in accordance with Section 17 (a) of the Arms Act, but is not likely to be granted as long as the cancellation is in force; actually, the latter is the more immediate remedy during the currency itself of a license. The petitioner did not appeal, though he was entitled to do so under Rule 41-A of the Indian Arms Rules 1951 within 80 days of his getting information of the cancellation. He waited hopefully till November 1959 when after some correspondence, the renewal was refused. This is also appealable under Rule 41; but again, he did not appeal. After issuing a peremptory notice to Government "seeking justice", he hag come to this Court.