KUKKILA NARAYANA NAIK Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been holding two licenses under the Arms Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act), one for possession of a gun and another for possession of a revolver. He received a notice Ext. P1 dated 24-1-1968 from the first respondent, the Additional District Magistrate, Cannanore, calling upon him to show cause in writing within 15 days off its receipt as to why the above licenses should not be cancelled for the reasons mentioned in the said notice. Ext. P1 stated that it had been brought to the notice of the first respondent that at about 1.00 P. M. on 10-7-1966, the petitioner threatened with his revolver by firing in the air one Venkatesha Murthy and his two coolies, while they were working in a plot of land allotted to him on dharkast in RS. No. 315/3 of Make Village, stating that Venkatesha Murthy had no right over the property, that enquiries conducted in the matter revealed that the petitioner was a hot tempered man and that his being in possession of the above fire arms was dangerous to public peace and tranquillity. The petitioner showed cause by his letter Ext. P2 dated 1-3-1968, stating that the information against him was wholly unfounded, that he did not know a person by name Venkatesha Murthy, that he never made any claim at any time over the above said land, that be has been a calm and loyal person, and that one Sheni Janardhana Nayak who was on bitter enemical terms with the petitioner and who had influence with the local police was responsible for the information against him. Sometime later, the second respondent passed an order Ext. P3 dated 27-11-1968, cancelling the petitioner's licence in respect of the two fire arms stating that it was revealed on enquiry that it was not desirable to retain the licenses from the security point of view. Ext. P3 also directed the second respondent, the Circle Inspector of Police, Kasargod to seize the said weapons This writ petition has been filed to quash Exts. P1 and P3 and to restrain respondents 1 and 2 from seizing the weapons from the petitioner as directed by Ext. P3. The main ground of attack against Ext P3 is that the said order is violative of the principles of natural justice, as it has been passed without disclosing to the petitioner the materials, if any, for making the said order and without giving him an opportunity to meet the charges against him. It is also contended that the first respondent did not comply with the requirements of S.17 of the Act in passing the above order.

(2.) The third respondent in this petition is the State of Kerala. An Assistant Secretary to the State Government has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the third respondent. Though" the allegations in the petition are against respondents 1 and 2, neither of them has chosen to deny them. The counter affidavit of the Assistant Secretary states that Shri M.K. Venkatesha Murthy submitted a petition on 11-7-1966 stating that himself and his coolies were objected and obstructed by the petitioner for doing work on a plot of land in R/S. No. 315/3 in Maire Village, which had been assigned to the said Murthy, that the petitioner threatened Murthy and his coolies by taking out a revolver and firing in the air, that enquiries conducted by the police revealed that the facts stated in the said petition were true, that the petitioner was a hot tempered man, and that his being in possession of a gun and a revolver was danger to public peace and security, and that the police recommended the cancellation of the licenses. The counter affidavit also states that the Executive First Class Magistrate, after conducting personal enquiries and giving the petitioner a chance for personal hearing on 19-9-1967, agreed with the proposals of the police and recommended cancellation of the licenses of both the fire arms, that the notice, Ext. P1, was issued by the first respondent on the basis of the report of the Executive First Class Magistrate, that though the petitioner denied all allegations in Ext. P1, the first respondent was satisfied, on a perusal of the records of the enquiry and evidence given by witnesses, that it was not desirable to retain the licenses of the petitioner from the security point of view, and that the impugned order, Ext. P3 was accordingly passed. The counter affidavit further states that Ext. P3 was passed not on the basis of the single incident alleged in the petition of Venkatesha Murthy; but the petitioner was reported to be at friction with his own brothers, and that the Bediadka Police Station has registered Crime No. 54 of 1968 against him for offences under S.147, 148 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) I he petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the averments in the counter affidavit, and also questioning the competency of the Assistant Secretary to the Government to swear to the facts stated in the counter affidavit. The reply affidavit states among other things that the petitioner is not aware of any enquiry conducted by the police or the Executive First Class Magistrate, except that he appeared before the Executive First Class Magistrate on 19-9-1967 as required by him, when the petitioner was told that his licenses are going to be cancelled, that he was not given even a copy of the petition from Venkatesha Murthy, or copy of any report by the police or the Executive First Class Magistrate, or copies of the statements of witnesses against him, that the existence of none of these matters has been disclosed in the show cause notice, Ext. P1, that he has been thus denied an opportunity to meet the case against him, and that Ext. P1 is, therefore, defective and the order, Ext. P3 is violative of natural justice. The reply affidavit specifically denies the allegation that the petitioner was at friction with his own brothers. It is further contended that Ext. P3 is violative of natural justice also on the ground that such an allegation was taken into consideration in passing Ext. P3 without giving the petitioner any notice of the said allegation or opportunity to meet it.