TRILOKI NATH SAXENA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SHAHJAHANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against an order, which has been described as an order cancelling the petitioner's licence.

(2.) According to the Petitioner's affidavit, he got from the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in 1954 a license for a revolver. The license was renewed up to the year 1957. In Dec., 1957, the Commissioner of Bareilly directed the District Magistrate not to renew the Petitioner's license. On 25-12-1957 the Petitioner was served by the District Magistrate with a notice directing him to surrender his revolver and license at once. The two Officers passed the orders against the Petitioner without giving him an opportunity of hearing. The Petitioner has prayed that, the District Magistrate's order passed in Dec., 1957, should be quashed, and he should be directed to renew the Petitioner's license.

(3.) The Arms Clerk in the Collectorate, Shahjahanpur filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party. According to the counter affidavit, the Petitioner's license was renewed upto Dec., 1957, without obtaining concurrence of the Commissioner According to R. 148 of UP Arms Rules, it was necessary to obtain concurrence of the Commissioner for renewal of the license. Papers were therefore submitted to the Commissioner for getting his concurrence. But by his letter dated 9-12-1957 the Commissioner expressed his inability to concur in the renewal of the Petitioner's license. That was why the District Magistrate passed an order on 10-12-1957 that the license would not be renewed.