CHATURBHUJ RAWAT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging annexure P/1. The order was passed on 30th of September, 1995, by the District Magistrate, Morena. The petitioner has been asked to deposit his arms licence during the pendency of the proceedings taken by the District Magistrate with a view to cancel the arms licence. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this order having been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner cannot be sustained. It be seen that section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, authorises the authority granting the licence to vary the conditions of a licence. Revocation is the final stage. Suspension would be an intermediate stage. A direction given to the licensee to deposit the arms licence would equally be covered by section 17 of the Act. Normally, rules of natural justice would require an opportunity of hearing to be given. However, in a given situation it may not be possible to grant such an opportunity.

(2.) THE aim of the rules of natural justice or to put it negatively is to prevent miscarriage of justice. Tucker L.J., in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk, 1949(1) All ER 109 emphasised that whatever standard of natural justice is adopted one essential is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case. It was observed :

(3.) LORD Denning, in Salvarajan, (1976) 1 All ER 1 said :