DOABA ARMS COMPANY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears to me from the record or this case no order in terms of Section 15(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 has been passed against the petitioner - Firm. It also appears that he notice required under Rule 46(i) of the Arms Rules, 1962, has also not been given to the petitioner. As a matter or fact the case of the respondent-District Magistrate is that there was no requirement to pass any specific order concerting the licence of the petitioner as Condition No. 1 (c) in Form XII of licence provided that if a licensee did not carryon his trade or business for a period of six months or more, the licence would ipso facto be deemed to be cancelled. The respondents have also tried to justify their action by staling that the correct addresses of the petitioners were not available with, them and, as a result whereof, the requisite notices, though issued, could not be personally served all though they were served by affixation. It has also been argued by Mr. Hindra that as per the column of the Licence in Form XII, licensee was required to give two addresses and his diems, i.e., the petitioner-Firm, had accordingly given two such address. As the questions raised by the parties, which are based on facts, have not been gone into by the. District Magistrate. I direct that the entire matter be put before the District Magistrate, Jalandhar, who will re-determine the matter keeping in view all the argument raised in this petition or any other argument raised before him. The District Magistrate will decide the matter by passing a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order after affording an opportunily of hearing to the petitioner-firm. The petitioner, however, will be at liberty to inspect all the records of the case that they wish to and no impediment will be put in their way for that purpose.

(2.) With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court if it facts aggrieved against the order of the District Magistrate and to take all such pleas which have been raised ill this petition.

(3.) The parties are directed to appear before the District Magistrate, Jalandhar, on. 28th January, 1992. Petition allowed