The decision of the competent authority to grant, cancel, or refuse a gun license under the Indian Arms Act and Rules is an administrative decision, not a quasi-judicial one, and is thus not subject to judicial review for procedural irregularities.

( 1 ) BY this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner moves for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order of the District Magistrate, Nimar, refusing to renew for the year 1958 the gun licence held by the petitioner and for quashing the order of the Commissioner, Indore Division, upholding the order of the District Magistrate. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus to the District Magistrate, Nimar, for the renewal of his gun licence for the year 1958 and subsequent years.

( 2 ) THE petitioner states that he comes of a very ancient, respectable and loyal family of Nimar; that ever since 1935 right up to 30-3-1957 he held a gun licence; and that in 1957 when he again applied for the renewal of the licence under Rule 41 of the Indian Arms Rules, 1951, the District Magistrate of Nimar without holding any enquiry and without giving him an opportunity of hearing refused to renew the licence by an order dated 27-4-1957. According to the petitioner, the order did not state the reasons for the refusal. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Indore Division, against the order of the District Magistrate, Nimar. The learned Commissioner upheld the District Magistrate's order of refusal.

( 3 ) THE District Magistrate refused to renew the petitioner's licence after satisfying himself on the basis of a police report and enquiries made by himself that the petitioner was 'an ex-history sheeter and a notorious' person and that it would not be in the interests of the public to renew his licence. The Commissioner considered all these grounds as valid for refusal to renew the licence.

( 4 ) SHRI Ratansingh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that under Rule 41 of the Indian Arms Rules, 1951, it was no doubt in the discretion of the competent authority to renew a licence but that in exercising this discretion the authority was required to act quasi-judicially and, therefore, the District Magistrate should have held an enquiry for determining the suitability of the petitioner for holding a licence and should have given a notice of the enquiry to the petitioner; and that the District Magistrate's action in refusing to renew the licence without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was, therefore, bad. It was said that the provision in Rule 41 relating to an appeal against the order of refusal of the competent authority to his immediate official superior and the requirement of Rule 41-B that the authority refusing to renew a licence shall record in writing its reasons for such refusal indicated that the authority was required to act in a quasi-judicial manner in exercising its discretion under Rule 41. Learned counsel proceeded to say that the order made by the District Magistrate was without jurisdiction inasmuch as he did not record his reasons for the refusal of the licence as required by Rule 41-B; and that on the material before him the District Magistrate was not justified in refusing to renew the licence.

( 5 ) WE are unable to accede to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the scheme and object of the Indian Arms Act and the Rules made thereunder, and to the provisions of Rules 41 and 41b, we are clearly of the opinion that the order of the District Magistrate refusing to renew the licence is an administrative order. The question whether an order made by an authority is a quasi-judicial or an administrative order is not a general or abstract question of principle. It has to be determined on a construction of the relevant provisions of the particular statutes under which the order in question is made by the authority concerned. The Supreme Court laid down in Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani, AIR 1950 SC 222, some of the tests to find out whether an authority making an order under an Act acts in a quasi-judicial or in an administrative capacity. In that ca