KSHIRODE CHANDRA PAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE HOWRAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a resident of Pansila, P. S. Shyampur in the district of Howrah. He was a holder of firearm license No. 1167 in respect of a 12 bore DBBL gun No. 5383. This gun was sold by him to Sri Panchanan Adhikary, another license holder in the town of Tamluk on 15-1-1953. On 16-1-1953, he appears to have informed the District Magistrate of this fact and forwarded a copy of the letter to the Officer-in-charge of Shyampore Police station. On 26-1-1953, he received a notice or a communication from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shyampore Police station, set out in para 5 of the petition. It appears from this document, which is described as a notice that it is recorded that the fire-arm license of the petitioner had been seized, having been cancelled under the Howrah District Magistrate's office Memo No. 1697-C dated the 24-12-1952 and S. P./D.I.B. office Memo No. 3 (2)/34-48 (2) 419 dated 30-12-1952. On 2-2-1953, the petitioner wrote a letter to the District Magistrate, Howrah, complaining of this so-called notice. The grievance was that in the notice no reasons had been recorded in writing as to why the license had been cancelled. It was further stated that unless the reasons were communicated, it would not be possible for the petitioner to make any representation to the appropriate authority against the seizure or cancellation of the license. The petitioner requested the District Magistrate to Intimate to him at his earliest convenience the reasons in writing for the cancellation of the license and to give him an opportunity of making a representation against the reasons communicated to him. There was no reply to this letter.

(2.) This Rule was issued on 9-3-1953 calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not issue to the opposite parties directing them to cancel, withdraw and/or revoke the order of cancellation of the fire-arm license of the petitioner as embodied in the Howrah District Magistrate's office Memo No. 1697-C dated 24-12-1952, and S. P./D.I.B. office Memo No. 3 (2)/ 34-48 (2)/419 dated 30-12-1952 complained of in the petition, or why such other or further order or orders should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

(3.) From the affidavits filed it appears that the notice complained of is not an order of cancellation at all. What happened was as follows: