PRAKASH GUN HOUSE Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE HARDOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT.

(2.) SINCE only a short question of law is involved, we propose to dispose of the petition finally.

(3.) THE restriction is sought to be justified by the opposite parties on the ground that a number of irregularities in the sale of arms and ammunitions had come to the notice of the District Magistrate and, therefore, in order to prevent the petitioners from indulging in mal-practices in the sale of arms, the aforesaid restriction was placed by the impugned order. This by itself is no ground to justify an unreasonable restriction on the right of the petitioners to carry on their business in arms and ammunitions. If the District Magistrate felt that the petitioners had in any way violated any provision of the Arms Act or the Rules framed thereunder or that they were carrying on their business in an irregular manner or that they had abused the privilege of the licence granted to them, he should or could have taken appropriate action under law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. But it was not open to him to restrict the petitioners' right to carry on business in arms and ammunitions for which they held valid licence. THE impugned order not only unilaterally alters the terms of the licence, it also has the effect of suspending the petitioners' licence in essential respect of transacting business with the licensees of other districts also.