SHEO PRASAD Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Sheo Prasad Misra, hereinafter called the petitioner, praying that the order dated 13th of May, 1974, passed by the District Magistrate, Basti, and the order dated 20th July, 1974, passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur, in appeal may be quashed.

(2.) THE petitioner held a licence for a single barrel gun. On a report of the police, a notice was issued to him by the District Magistrate of Basti to show cause why his licence be not cancelled. THE petitioner filed objections in response to the notice. THE District Magistrate, however, held that, since there were several reports lodged against the petitioner and since the police reported that he was a man of bad character, it was not safe to allow the licencee to keep the weapon with him. THE District Magistrate further observed that the licencee was asked to deposit the gun which he did not do and had thereby contravened the orders of the licencing authority. On these two premises the District Magistrate passed the order cancelling the licence of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Magistrate, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. THE Commissioner, however, concurred with the District Magistrate and dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 20th of July, 1974. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid orders passed by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(3.) THAT leaves us with clause (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 17. It is true that it is one of the conditions of a licence that the weapon should be delivered when the licencee is called upon to do so. It also appears on a perusal of the order passed by the District Magistrate that the petitioner was asked to deliver the gun, but he failed to do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however urged that no notice was served on him to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled for the reason of his having failed to deliver the weapon despite his having been called upon to do so. It is well established that proceedings under Section 17 of the Arms Act are quasi judicial proceedings. It was, therefore, necessary for the District Magistrate to have served a notice to that effect on the petitioner, if it was intended to cancel the petitioner's licence on the ground that he did not deposit the weapon despite having been called upon to do so and had thereby committed breach of the conditions of the licence. In case such a notice was given the petitioner could offer some plausible explanation for the same. It does not, however, appear from the order passed by the District Magistrate or from the order passed by the Commissioner that any such notice was issued to the petitioner.