LAWS(ALL)-1987-11-26

RAJ DHAR MISRA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BANDA

Decided On November 27, 1987
RAJ DHAR MISRA Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BANDA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 29th October, 1987, passed by the District Magistrate. Banda, calling upon the petitioner to either produce an interim order of this Court or to deposit his firearms in the police station failing which he may render himself liable for prosecution under section 25 of the Arms Act.

(2.) THE District Magistrate, on 10th July, 1984, cancelled the licences held by the petitioner for a carbine and a gun. THE petitioner questioned the legality of this order by means of a writ petition in this Court. During the pendency of the petition this Court passed an interim order staying the operation of the order of the District Magistrate. However, on 4th March, 1986, this court disposed of the said writ petition finally with the following directions :- " In the circumstances we direct that the petitioner may file his objection or representation before the District Magistrate within a period of one month from to day which shall be considered on merits by the District Magistrate before passing any order against the petitioner. (Underlining by us). Subject to the above the writ petition is disposed of. "

(3.) IN the present case, it is true that after revoking the licences of the petitioner the District Magistrate did not give him any notice for the purpose of affording him an opportunity of hearing. The District Magistrate stopped short of passing an order of revocation. But, it is equally true that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, did not issue any direction that the petitioner need not surrender his arms till the disposal of his objections/representation. The surrender of the arms by the petitioner was implicit in the order of the revocation of the licences. A separate order directing the petitioner to surrender his arms was not required to be given. Therefore, the District Magistrate was not required to pass an order to that effect. The net result is that the order of the District Magistrate revoking the licences of the petitioner continues to operate with full vigour.