( 1 ) THIS Full Bench has been constituted to resolve the conflict in the two decisions, one in writ petition No. 9475 of 1986 Kripa Shankar v. District Magistrate, Gorakhpur and others, and the other in Awadhesh Kumar Misra v. District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, 1988 0 Allwc 42 : (1988 All LJ 363 ). It appears that when this writ petition was filed before Hon. V. K. Mehrotra and Hon. Ravi S. Dhavan, JJ. the decision of Hon. K. C. Aggarwal and Hon. M. P. Singh, JJ. in Kripa Shankars case (supra) was cited for the petitioner while the Standing Counsel relied upon Awadheshs case (supra ). Noticing a conflict in those decisions, a reference for constituting a larger Bench was made.

( 2 ) BALRAM Singh has filed this petition against the order dated 11-4-1988 passed by the A. D. M. (F.), Banda, thereby suspending the petitioners licence for possessing, a revolver and a rifle issued under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) pending proceedings for revocation thereof, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1. From the two reports dated 15-3-88 forwarded by the Tehsildar and the S. D. M. , Banda, on the complaint of Ram Naresh, Lekhpal, the Licensing Authority was satisfied that the petitioner along with his three accomplices had reached the Tehsil premises, being armed with his licensed revolver and rifle; beat the Lekhpal in order to get an application of the petitioner for grant of pension forcibly forwarded through the Lekhpal, retreated after severely admonishing the Lekhpal; a report under Section 332, I. P. C. had been registered against him as case No. 284 of 1988 at Kotwali Banda. The A. D. M. thus suspended the arms licence on the ground that the petitioner was having criminal instant and directed the petitioner to show cause why the Arms License be not cancelled and further directed the Station Officer, Pailani, to get deposited the arms of the petitioner at the Police Station and submit compliance report immediately.

( 3 ) WE have heard Sri Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi on behalf of the petitioner as regards the legal questions. Though Sri R. C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to go into the factual aspects but we did not permit because the writ petition has to go back to the appropriate Bench after we resolve the supposed conflict. We have also heard Sri M. C. Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

( 4 ) IN fact, Sri Chaturvedi argued the same old questions which have been the subject matter of discussion in the two Full Bench decisions of this Court reported in 1984 All WC 145 : (1986 All LJ 328) (Sahus case) and 1985 All WC 493 : (AIR 1985 All 291) (Kailash Naths case) which may be formulated as under : (1) The power to suspend an arms licence is not included in the power to cancel the licence. (2) The power to suspend an arms licence cannot be exercised during proceedings for its cancellation.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner is right when he says that in Sahus case (which is relied upon by him) it was held that the Licensing Authority has no power to suspend the arms licence pending proceedings for revocation of the arms licence. Hon. Mr. Justice H. N. Seth (as he then was) delivered the judgement on behalf of the three Hon. Judges. But, in Kailash Naths case, which has been relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel, Hon. M. N. Shukla, C. J. delivering the leading judgement (with which Hon. M. Wahajuddin, J. , Hon. R. P. Shukla, J. and Hon. A. N. Dikshita, J. agreed) held that finality to the order of revocation can be attached only after the said authority hears the licence-holder and adjudicates upon his objections. Honble H. N. Seth, J. expressed his own views in paragraph 27 explaining what are the implications of Sahus case. However, the effect of the concluding portion of the judgement of Honble M. N. Shukla C. J. as well as Honble H. N. Seth, J. were one and the same i. e. the objections of th