Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 7th September, 2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh by which the firearm licence of the petitioner has been suspended pending enquiry for its cancellation under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2. The petitioner was granted the firearm licence in 2005. The impugned order recites that Crime Case No. 296 of 2004 (according to the petitioner it is 296 of 2005) under Sections 325, 323 and 504, Indian Penal Code and Crime Case No. 408 of 2006 under Section 160 Indian Penal Code are pending against the petitioner and as the possession of the firearm with the petitioner will be detrimental for the security of the public peace and public safety, it was necessary to revoke the licence. The petitioner has, therefore, been asked to submit a reply within 15 days as to why his licence may not be revoked but in the meantime the licence of the petitioner has been suspended pending enquiry and he has been asked to deposit the firearm in the police station.

3. The sole contention advanced by Sri Ram Niwas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the firearm licence cannot be suspended by the District Magistrate pending enquiry and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 1996 (Supp.) AWC 92.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has, however, contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and has submitted that the firearm licence can be suspended pending enquiry for cancellation of the licence.

5. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to quote Section 17(3) of the Act, which is as follows :

“17 (3). The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence—

(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or

(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or

(c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it.; or

(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or

(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence.”

6. A Full Bench of this Court consisting of five Hon’ble Judges in the case of Kailash Nath and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1985 (11) ALR 451 had the occasion to examine the orders by which the firearms licence was cancelled and a direction had been given to deposit the firearm forthwith. These orders were sought to be challenged on the ground that they were passed without any notice to the petitioners or opportunity of hearing having been given to them prior to the cancellation of the licence. The Full Bench while observing that the licence for acquisition and possession of firearms is merely a personal privilege and the grant of privilege does not involve the adjudication of the rights of an individual and nor does it entail civil consequences, held that the Act or the Rules made thereunder do not contemplate a notice being given to the licence holder before cancelling or varying or suspending the licence but nevertheless, the act of cancelling or refusing to renew the licence leads to grave consequences. In this context it observed :

“In the instant case the gun licences of the petitioners were cancelled without any prior notice to them and