( 1 ) THE petitioner in this petition challenges under Articles 226 and 227 the order of respondent No. 1 the Commissioner of Police dated July 20 1968 suspending the petitioners licence for a firearm till the cases mentioned in his order were decided.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was issued a licence for a revolver on May 15 1949 which was from time to time renewed and it is valid upto December 31 1970 A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on June 15 1968 by respondent No. 1 informing him that on inquiry it was found that the petitioner was practicing medicine without a certificate for carrying on medical profession and that he was giving threats to kill his landlord because of disputes with him and that it was learnt that in 1948 there was a case against him for dacoity between Abu and Marwar. The petitioner was therefore asked to show cause why his licence should not be suspended under sec 17 (1) of the Arms Act 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Act as he was not a fit person for the above reason to hold a revolver. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated June 24. 1968 pointing out that he was a M. B. B. S. of the Punjab Homeopathy University and he had obtained a degree of Bachelor of Medicines and Bachelor of Surgery in Bio-chemistry as per the University certificate dated April 4 1942 The petitioner also pointed out that his antecedents were verified by the police authorities when the licence was issued. The petitioner denied any such threat to the landlord as alleged. The petitioner pointed out how he helped the police authorities in many cases. The petitioner denied the alleged dacoity case against him. The respondent No. 1 has however passed the impugned order after reading the said reply as the petitioner was a complainant in Kagdapith Police Station Cr. R. 1090 of 1967 and as there was a chapter case against the petitioner the said licence was suspended under sec. 17 (3) of the Act till those cases were decided the petitioner appealed to the State Government on July 31 1968 The respondent No. 2 the State has dismissed the appeal as it found no reasons to change the order passed by the Commissioner of police taking into account the grounds mentioned in the appeal. The petitioner has alleged that no hearing whatever was given before this appeal was disposed of by the State. The petitioner has therefore prayed for quashing the impugned order of respondent No. 1 and for other appropriate reliefs in this petition.

( 3 ) AT the bearing Mr. Bhatt raised the following points:- (1) That the order of respondent No. 1 being a quasi-judicial order it could not be passed without complying with the essential principles of natural justice. The impugned order was therefore vitiated as the petitioner was never informed of the new grounds on the basis of which the licence was suspended. (2) That the reasons recorded by respondent No. 1 were no reasons at all in the eye of law. (3) That in any event even the order was malafide because the police authorities were biased against the petitioner. (4) That the appellate authority could not have disposed of this appeal without giving any personal hearing to the petitioner.

( 4 ) BEFORE going into the relevant provisions of the Act it would be proper at the outset to examine the settled legal tests for determining whether the function is purely an administrative function or a judicial or a quasi-judicial function and whether the power is to be judicially or quasi-judicially exercised on certain objective tests or the discretion is to be an absolute discretion. In P. L. Lakhanpal v. Union of India A. I. R. 1967 S C. 1507 at page 1512 Their Lordships in terms held that even the function which is in its inception executive in character may not retain the executive character all throughout and it may become quasi-judicial at later or some intermediate stage during the course of Its exercise At the stage at which it attains the nature of a quasi-judicial function the au