AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Dubey, J.
This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of suspension of the Arms licence, dated 27-5-1986 (Annexure R-2), for holding 12 bore gun; passed by S.D.M. Basoda, confirmed in appeal, by the District Magistrate, Vidisha vide Annexure P-1.
Shri K. S. Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that u/s 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, the ''Act''), when the Licensing Authority passes an order in writing suspending a licence of a gun, it must specify a period of suspension. Counsel pressed into service a decision of this Court passed in Misc. Petition No. 20 of 1972(G), decided on 27-9-1977, Lokpalsingh v. State of M. P. 1977 (II) WN.424.
On the other hand, Shri S.B. Mishra, learned Government Advocate, contended that as the order of suspension specifies the reasons, and on a show cause notice final decision has yet to be taken by the Licensing Authority, no interference is called for.
After hearing counsel, we are of the opinion that the order suspending licence is in clear violation of Section 17 (3) of the Act, which we extract :
Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.--
(1) XXX.
(2) XXX.
(3) The licensing authority may, by order in writing, suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence,--
(a) to (e) XXX.
(4) to (10) XXX.
A plain reading of Section 17 (3) of the Act shows that the Licensing Authority may, by an order in writing, suspend the licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke the licence on any one or more of the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-sec. (3) of Section 17. Thus, the suspension can only be for a specified or definite period In the impugned order, the period having not been specified, such an order of suspension for an indefinite period cannot be sustained See Lokpal Singh''s case (supra).
As the matter is still pending at the show cause stage before the S.D.M. Basoda, in the circumstances, we direct the S.D.M. Basoda to dispose of the proceedings finally in accordance with law within a period of three months after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner to file certified copy of this order on 19 October, 1992, which we fix as the date for his appearance before S.D.M., Basoda.
The petition is disposed of in the manner aforesaid. A typed copy of the order be given to learned Government Advocate and certified copy to the petitioner.