K GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT Vs. DIST MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were licensed to possess weapons. The petitioner in the first of the petitions was granted a licence in the year 1963 while the petitioner in the second of the petitions was granted a licence in the year 1953. It is asserted that on the complaint of one Lingappa Gowda who was ill disposed towards them, Tahsildar- Magistrate, Sullia, O.K., appears to have passed the impugned order, a true copy of which is produced at Exhibit-A to the petition, cancelling their licences. It is asserted that it is opposed to the rules of natural justice in as much as the petitioners were not given an opportunity to explain the complaint made against them.

(2.) The appeal preferred against that order of cancellation of the 2nd respondent- Tahsildar Magistrate, Sullia, to the District Magistrate, Dakshina Kannada District, was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions are filed inter alia contending that while the Tahsildar Magistrate did not give an opportunity to the licence holders to make proper representation against proposed cancellation. The appellate authority has totally misdirected himself in upholding the order of the Tahsildar-Magistrate on an assumption that the enquiry held by the Tahsildar Magistrate would be a good substitute for an opportunity being given to the petitioners.

(3.) The grounds taken for the petitioners are well founded. Whether it is a fact or not, any complaint against the petitioners by Lingappa Gowda cannot be a ground for cancellation unless the reasons furnished for such cancellation and an opportunity has been given to the licence holders to explain the complaint made against them. It is only when it is decided that the complaint is well founded, that action may be taken by the competent authority to cancel the licence. On mere here-say evidence or what is called spot inspection without the presence of the petitioners or without the petitioners being party to the spot inspection, order as at Exhibit-A cannot be passed. In certain areas of the State, it is common for people to be licensed for fire-arms, both as a means of self-protection and for purpose of protecting their crops and other plantations against wild animals. As evidenced by the order of the Tahsildar-Magistrate, Sullia, the enquiry appears to have been one sided. The petitioners' neighbours have been heard behind their back and that they had no opportunity of cross-examining any of the witnesses who were questioned by the Tahsildar-Magistrate. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nanappa v. Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore (1966(2) Mys.L.J. 305), before the licensing authority may exercise the power under Sec. 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, he should inform the holder of the licence the grounds on which it was proposed to revoke the licence. That authority had no power, without affording an opportunity to show cause that there was no ground for revocation.