The principles of natural justice do not require a prior show cause notice to be given before revoking a gun license under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959, as the statute itself incorporates in its own ways the requirement of the principles of natural justice.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated January 25, 1968, passed by a learned single Judge of the Court in a writ proceeding which was registered as Civil Rule No. 673 (W) of 1964. The point involved in this appeal is one of law and the point is whether a notice to show cause is necessary to be given by the licensing authority prior to revoking a gun licence under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). Such a point was not raised at the trial but has been raised in this appeal as a point of law by Mr. Dutt appearing in support of this appeal. The undisputed facts may be set out very briefly as follows.

( 2 ) THE petitioner (appellant before us) was the holder of a gun licence bearing No. 2372 BH. In May 1962 over a certain incident a criminal case was started against the petitioner by a neighbour Byomkesh Chakrabarti who having seized the petitioner's gun deposited the same with the local police station along with some fired cartridges and some live cartridges. There was a counter case by the petitioner against the said Byomkesh. Eventually both the cases were compounded and the learned Magistrate directed the gun and the cartridges to be returned to the petitioner. The licence having been misplaced the petitioner applied before the licensing authority for issue of a duplicate licence. The licensing authority called for a report from a Deputy Magistrate Shri S. K. Gupta Roy, who was then the Officer-in-Charge of the Arms Department under the licensing authority. Shri Roy submitted a report on February 12, 1964, to the effect that the licensee does not appear to be a suitable person for possessing a fire-arm, and as such, his prayer for issue of a duplicate licence was recommended to be rejected along with a further recommendation that his licence be revoked. He recommended as such as he found that there is truth in the complaint made against the petitioner to the effect that he being armed with the gun formed an unlawful assembly and forcibly entered into the house of the complainant Byomkesh to take away the straw kept in his yard and there fired two rounds causing injury to three persons. On consideration of the report so submitted, the licensing authority revoked the licence by making an endorsement on the report "as proposed". That was the order which was challenged in the aforesaid writ proceeding. Before the learned trial Judge the only point that was raised was to the effect that the licensing authority not having himself recorded the order of revocation with his own reasons a mere endorsement of approval of the recommendation of Shri Roy does not constitute a valid order of revocation under Section 17 of the said Act. The learned trial Judge, however, overruled the point so raised when he observed:"where the order of the Magistrate indicates his approval of the reasons given in the report which is made a part of his order it cannot be said that he did not apply his mind to the matter; on the other hand it shows that he had adopted the reasons given by his delegate (vide Godha Singh v. D. M. Ferozepur, Approve is an acknowledged mode of discharge where the material upon which the approval takes place is otherwise valid. "mr. Dutt appearing on behalf of the appellant in his usual fairness has not challenged the correctness of the decision of the learned trial Judge on the aforesaid issue and we too fully agree with the learned trial Judge since reading the order of the licensing authority as a whole we find that having considered the reasons given by Shri Roy in support of his recommendation the licensing authority agreed thereto when he accepted and approved the recommendation for revocation of the licence.

( 3 ) MR. Dutt, however, has raised a new point before us in this appeal. He has contended that an order of revocation under Section 17 (3) necessarily takes away the legal r