KOKKU VENKATARAMAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether an authority acting under section 18 (a) of the Indian Arms Act can be said to be exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function with all its incidents, or merely an administrative or executive function which impirges on the fundamental right of a citizen to acquire and hold property-as to which there is a divergence of opinion-there is a consensus of judicial opinion that an order cancelling a fire-arm licence, which does not satisfy the requirements of section 18(a), is liable to be set aside by the High Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution : Vide Beni Chand v. District Magistrate, Banda, A.I.R. 1953 All. 476, Sudhansu Kanta Achaarya v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1954 Pat. 299, Haji Md. Vakil v. Commissioner of Police, A.I.R.1954 Cal. 157, Bagga Singh v. District Magistrate, Barulala, A.I.R. 1954 Pepsu 150, Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1954 Raj. 264, Narasimha Reddy v. District Magistrate, Cuddapak, (1953)1 M.L.J. 418 : A.I.R. 1953 Mad 476, State of Madras (Appellant), (1957) 2 M.L.J. 249 and V. Thinmappa v. Additional Dt. Magistrate, Anantapur, (1955)An. W.R. 355. Section 18(a) of the Indian Arms Act is in the following terms:-

(2.) It will be observed that the section requires that an order cancellirg a licence should on the face of it show : (a) that it was passed because in the opinion of the concerned authority such an order was necessary for the security of the public peace, and (b) that the reasons for forming that opinion have been recorded in writing by that authority. The question for consideration in the present case is whether the order which is challenged in this writ petition is bad for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the section quoted above.

(3.) On 27th February, 1957, the petitioner, who is a Police Patel of Madanturti village, was granted a licence by the District Collector of Warangal for the possession of a 12 bore S.B.B.L. gun. The petitioner then purchased a gun. Within a couple of months thereafter, all on a sudden he received an order, dated 17th April, 1957, issued by the District Collector, stating that his gun-licence had keen cancelled on "administrative grounds ". The order gave no inkling as to what those grounds were. The Collector appears to have acted on some anonymous petitions. Agrieved by that order, the petitioner took the matter up in appeal to the Government under rule 4I-A of the Indian Arms Rules, butthe appeal was rejected with the remark that " the Government did not see sufficient justification to interfere with the Collector's order."