TANWEER AHMAD KHAN vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SANGHAR AND ANOTHER

S. A. NUSRAT, J.-The petitioner has challenged the order of the respondent No. 1 dated 21-9-1978, whereby his revolver licence No. 4076/ H. Y. D. City dated 24-3-1976 was cancelled under the provisions of Martial Law Order No. 64. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principle of. Natural justice inasmuch as he was neither given any show-cause notice nor heard as the matter before passing of the order.

2. Martial Law Order No. 64, issued by the M. L. A's Zone "C", provides as per paragraph-2 thereof as under :- "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or rule for the time being in force, a District Magistrate shall review the licences for fire-arms issued between 1st January 1972 and 31st December 1976 and if he is satisfied that any such licensee is an undesirable person and is not fit to hold the licence he shall cancel his licence."

The requirement of the above provision necessarily is that before cancelling any arms licence the Deputy Commissioner concerned must satisfy himself that the licensee was an undesirable person and not fit to hold a licence. Such finding could be given only after enquiry and it is prerequisite of law that the person concerned, against whom the enquiry is held, must be given an opportunity of hearing before any adverse order is passed against him.

3. The learned Advocate-General contended that the petitioner had failed to avail of the alternate remedy of filing an appeal to the Government as provided in paragrah-3 of the M. L. O. We, however, find that the impugned order was issued on a cyclostyled pro formo and was passed by the learned District Magistrate without applying his mind as the order does not show that he was satisfied that the petitioner was an undesirable person and not fit to hold licence. Such a finding could only be recorded after serving the petitioner with a show-cause notice and/or, at least granting A him a hearing, more particularly, because the cancellation of licence under' the M. L. O.

Carries with it a stigma that the petitioner was an undesirable person. Since the impugned order did not disclose any grounds the petitioner had nothing to urge in appeal before the Government, if he wasto file one, as provided under para. 3 of the M. L. O.

4. For the above reasons we would allow this petition and declare that the impugned order dated 21-9-1978 was passed by the respondent No. 1 without lawful authority. The Petition thus succeeds but there will be no order as to costs.