JAI NARAIN RAI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a judgment of our brother Broome refusing to S lash an order passed by respondent No. 1, the District Magistrate of Azamgarh, cancelling under section 18 of the Indian Arms Act an arms licence possessed by the appellant on the ground that it was necessary to do so for the security of public peace. The order of the District Magistrate was challenged on the ground that no inquiry was held in the appellant's presence, that he was not called upon to show cause and was not heard in any other manner and that, consequently, the first principle of natural justice was violated. It is said that a Sub-Divisional Magistrate made an inquiry into use fey the appellant of the gun on a certain occasion but the inquiry was made at the back of the appellant. He was not informed to be present at a certain place at a certain time during the inquiry with the result that he was never present at any stage of the inquiry. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate never questioned him about anything and never asked him to produce any evidence. At the end of the ex parte inquiry he submitted a report to the District Magistrate on the basis of which he passed the impugned order.

(2.) OUR learned brother held that no inquiry was required to be made at all in the appellant's presence under Section 18. He has referred to Rameshwar Prasad Kedarnath v. District Magistrate, AIR 1954 All 144 in which it was held that a licence to deal in controlled cloth cannot be cancelled without the licencee having been given an opportunity to be heard but he distinguished it on the ground that a licence to deal in cloth involves a fundamental right of holding property and of carrying on business, whereas cancellation of a licence to possess fire-arms does no involve any question of fundamental right. Under the Arms Act a person cannot acquire and hold or possess firearms without a licence. If a licence is granted to him he can acquire and hold fire-arms but the moment the licence is cancelled he ceases to be entitled to hold them and must deposit them with the District Magistrate or the police or sell them. With great respect to our learned brother we do not see how it can be said that cancellation of a licence for fire-arms does not involve loss of any fundamental right.

(3.) IT was said in the counter-affidavit that the appellant disentitled himself to the relief sought by him by his failure to file an appeal to the Commissioner from the impugned order. But the fact is that he could file the appeal only within thirty days from the date or the order and that the order was communicated to him after the expiry of thirty days, with the result that he could no longer file an appeal.