SATISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. N. Sinha, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A. G. A. for the opposite party.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition is that the petitioner is licence holder of. 315 bore of rifle. THE petitioner received a notice on 17-10-2002 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) from the Additional District Magistrate for suspension of the licence and depositing of the rifle at the concerned police station. THE Additional District Magistrate (Administration) had issued this notice. This proposition of law is undisputed that the District Magistrate has no authority to get the fire-arms deposited unless the licence has been cancelled. THE licence cannot be suspended unless a reasonable opportunity has been given to the petitioner licenceholder to show-cause. THE petitioner has been served with this notice with a direction to file his objection but before the objection was filed, the District Magistrate passed the order for deposit of arms alongwith notice itself. Since the licence was not cancelled the arm cannot be ordered to be deposited at the police station. It will not be out of place to mention that inspite of several pronouncements by this Court, the Executive Officers have not paid any heed to the direction and act arbitrarily while suspending the licence without giving any reasonable opportunity.