Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2000 passed by District Magistrate suspending fire-arm licence of petitioner till criminal case pending against him is finalised and the appellate order dated 10.1.2001 passed by Commissioner rejecting petitioner’s appeal.

2. The District Magistrate in the present case issued show-cause notice dated 19.7.1999 requiring petitioner to show-cause why his fire-arm licence may not be cancelled or suspended. He referred to report dated 10.6.1999 of Sub Divisional Magistrate Bihata, Gokul stating that on 9.6.1999, petitioner abused and assaulted one Satya Prakash son of Makrand Pasi, his father and brother, locked them in a room in his house and after assaulting with his licensed gun also threatened them to kill. In this regard a criminal case No. 108 of 1999 under Sections 342/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act was registered and a charge-sheet was also submitted which shows that petitioner used to threaten general public, misusing his gun and is likely to commit any serious offence at any point of time causing threat to public safety. The petitioner submitted his reply/objection dated 12.8.1999, controverting allegations levelled against him and said that he was falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He also stated that on the alleged date and time of incident, he was ill and hence question of committing such an offence on the said date, time and place could not have arisen. He denied of having used his weapon for any disturbance of public peace and safety at any point of time.

3. Thereafter the District Magistrate passed impugned order dated 15.12.2000 suspending fire-arm licence of petitioner till disposal of the aforesaid criminal case. The District Magistrate referred to pendency of criminal case against petitioner before the Court and also that the petitioner since has admitted enmity with one Rakesh son of Indra Pal of his village, possibility of misuse of fire-arm cannot be ruled out. He also referred to some report dated 23.9.2000 received from Station Officer of concerned Police Station, stating that another criminal case has been registered against petitioner during pendency of the same, therefore, it would justify an inference that petitioner can dare misuse of his weapon at any point of time. Hence, considering the aspect of public peace and safety, it would be justified that he should be directed to surrender his weapon after suspending his licence under Section 17(3) of Act 1959. He passed order accordingly. This order has been challenged in appeal before the Commissioner who rejected appeal by appellate order dated 10.1.2001.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that firstly, the impugned orders have been passed without showing existence of any of the grounds enumerated under Section 17(3) (a) to (e) and secondly, that the authorities below have referred to Station Officer’s report/comments dated 23.9.2000 though show-cause notice issued to the petitioner on 19.7.1999 had been replied by the petitioner on 12.8.1999. The alleged report 23.9.2000 and its contents were never disclosed to petitioner. The authorities below have taken into account certain material never disclosed to him, hence, impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that in respect of comments/report dated 23.9.2000, the petitioner had no opportunity to place his stand and, therefore, the impugned orders passed by respondents are in utter violation of principles of natural justice.

5. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that the subsequent material which has been taken into account by District Magistrate in passing the impugned order dated 15.12.2000 obviously was never disclosed to petitioner and has been considered at his back.

6. An attempt has been made by the learned Standing Counsel to contend that grant of fire-arm licence being a privilege of the State and not a right of i