An order canceling a firearm license, which does not satisfy the requirements of Section 18(a) of the Arms Act, is liable to be set aside by the High Court.

( 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 impinges 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 canceling a firearm 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. Dist. Magistrate, Banda, AIR 1953 ATI 476; Sudhansu Kanta Acharyya v. State of Bihar, AIR 1954 Pat 299; Haji Md. Vakil v. Commr. of Police, AIR 1954 Cal 157; Bugga Singh v. Dist. Magistrate Barnala AIR 1954 Pepsu 150; Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1954 Raj 264; Narasimha Reddy v. Dist. Magistrate, Cuddapah, AIR 1953 Mad 476; In re, State of Madras. 1957-2 Mad LJ 249 : ( (S) AIR 1957 Mad 692) and Vemulu Thimmappa v. Addl. Dist. Magistrate, Anantapur, 1955 0 Anwr 355.

( 2 ) SECTION 18 (a) of the Indian Arms Act, is in the following terras:"section 18-- Canceling and suspension of licence : Any licence may be cancelled or suspended- (a) by an officer by whom the same was granted, or by any authority to which he may be sub-ordinate, or by any Magistrate of a district or Commissioner of Police in a presidency town, within the limits of whose jurisdiction the holder of such licence mav be. when, for reasons to be recorded in writing, such officer, authority. Magistrate or Commissioner deems it necessary for the security of the public peace to cancel or suspend such licence;"

( 3 ) IT will be observed that the section requires that an order canceling 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. (Sa) 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.

( 4 ) ON 27-2-1957 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 17-4-1957, issued by the District Collector, stating that this gun-licence had been 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.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by that order, the petitioner took the matter up in appeal to the Government under Rule 41-A of the Indian Arms Rules, but the appeal was rejected with the remark that "the Government did not see sufficient justification to interfere with the Collectors order. "

( 6 ) IT is obvious that the order made by the Collector does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 18 (a) of the Arms Act inasmuch as no reasons were assigned by the Collector for the cancellation of the licence. The vague formula "administrative grounds", incorporated in the order, can hardly be regarded as "reasons" contemplated by the section. The reasons must specify the grounds on which action was taken and they must show at least "prima facie" how the possession of a gun by the licensee would endanger public peace. Such reasons alone would sustain an order of cancellation.

( 7 ) IN this context it is material to note that Rule 41-A of the Indian Aims Rules gives the aggrieved party a right of appeal against an order canceling a licence; and if such an order is not a speaking order, the right of appeal cannot be exercised effectively. A mute ord