Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
G. K. Misra, C. J. And R. N. Misra, J.
DIGAMBAR PANDA - Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - Respondent
O. J. C. 174 Of 1966
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 23, 1969
GUN LICENSE REVOCATION - ARMS ACT, 1959 - SECTIONS 17(3)(B), 18(1), 18(5) - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - HEARING BEFORE REVOCATION - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND - RIGHT TO HOLD LICENSE - APPEAL - RIGHT TO BE HEARD - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's gun license was revoked by the Additional District Magistrate on the grounds that he was a rowdy element, had threatened to kill opponents with his gun, and was suspected of involvement in arson cases. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the orders of the Additional District Magistrate and the Revenue Divisional Commissioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the orders of the Additional District Magistrate and the Revenue Divisional Commissioner were without jurisdiction because the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to place materials in support of his case before the license was revoked. The court found that the petitioner had a right to a hearing before the license was revoked, as the revocation affected his fundamental right to hold property.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the revocation of his gun license. 2. Whether the orders of the Additional District Magistrate and the Revenue Divisional Commissioner were without jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the revocation of his gun license because the revocation affected his fundamental right to hold property. The court found that the principle of natural justice requires that a person be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before a decision is made that affects their rights. 2. The court held that the orders of the Additional District Magistrate and the Revenue Divisional Commissioner were without jurisdiction because the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The court found that the petitioner had a right to a hearing before the license was revoked, and that the failure to provide him with a hearing rendered the orders void.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders of the Additional District Magistrate and the Revenue Divisional Commissioner and directed that the petitioner's gun be restored to him with a proper license.
G. K. MISRA, C. J.
( 1 ) THE petitioner had one S. B. M. L. gun with license. On 11-9-63 the Additional district Magistrate, Dhenkanal cancelled the license by passing the following order:
"discussed with the Sub-divisional Officer. The licensee Sri Digambar panda is reported to be a rowdy element. He is reported to be threatening to kill some of his opponents with his gun. He has also been suspected in some arson cases and has been removed from the Naib sarpanchship of Chandrasekharprasad Grama Punchayet on charge of misappropriation of (and?) forgery. S. P. has recommended cancellation of his license. It is undesirable to permit him to hold a gun in view of his anti-social activities. His license is therefore cancelled. "
Against this order, M. A. No. 4 of 1965 was filed before the Revenue Divisional commissioner who dismissed the appeal on 9-2-66. The substantive part of the appellate order runs thus:
"i find that the order dated 11-9-63 of the Additional District Magistrate, dhenkanal, is self-explanatory. It shows clearly that possession of a gun license by the petitioner (who?) adduced no evidence to disprove the allegations. The appeal is dismissed. Sd/. D. D. Surk. "
( 2 ) THE writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the aforesaid two orders.
( 3 ) MR. G. B. Mohanty for the petitioner advanced the following contentions:-
(i) Neither the revoking authority nor the appellate authority recorded reasons for revoking the petitioner's gun license. The orders should have been a speaking order. (ii) The order is mala fide. (iii) No reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause prior to the cancellation of the license. The order is therefore liable to be quashed as having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
( 4 ) WE do not find any substantial reason for holding that the order was mala fide. The second contention is accordingly rejected.
( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the first contention, the relevant provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the (new) Arms Act, 1959 (Act 54 of 1959) may be noticed.
"17 (3) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a license by order in writing suspend a license for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a license-x x x x x x (b) if the licensing authority deems if necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the license. (5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a license under Sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a license under Sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefor and furnish to the holder of the license on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement. " "18. Appeals : (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the licensing authority refusing to grant a license or varying the conditions of a license, or by an order of the licensing authority or the authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate, suspending or revoking a license, may prefer an appeal against that order to such authority (hereinafter referred to as the appellate authority) and within such period as may be prescribed: provided that no appeal shall lie against any order made by, or under the direction of, the Government, (5) In disposing of an appeal the appellate authority shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed: provided that no appeal shall be disposed of unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. * * * (7) Every order of the appellate authority confirming, modifying, or reversing the order appealed against shall be final. "
( 6 ) THE first contention urged on the basis of Section 17 (3) (b) is that the licensing authority must have the satisfaction that the revocation of the license was necessary for the security of the public peace and or public safety
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
