IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 788 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 4th April, 2011. Vinay Kumar Petitioner through Mr. S.S.Sidhu, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 15.12.2010 and 03.01.2011 passed by the Additional District Magistrate and District Magistrate Sri Muktsar Sahib suspending his arms dealership licence. From the reply/affidavit filed by the respondents it appears that the petitioner's licence has been suspended on the basis of a criminal complaint filed by the Directorate of Vigilance Bureau alleging that a consignment of 2000 cartridges of foreign origin meant to be delivered to the petitioner, were recovered during the search of his premises. One of the grievance of the petitioner is that while passing the impugned order, sub-Section [5] of Section 17 of the Arms Act has not been complied with as neither any reason in writing has been assigned nor conveyed to the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears expedient that the principles of natural justice to the extent of issuance of a show cause notice ought to have been complied with before taking the punitive action. In order to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the order dated 15.12.2010 shall be treated as a show cause notice to which the petitioner shall submit his reply within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Respondent No. 2 shall thereafter pass a speaking order after considering the explanation to be submitted by the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of submission of the objections, if any, by the petitioner. The explanation to be given by the petitioner shall be considered by respondent No. 2 uninfluenced of his previous order and the opportunity being given herein above to the petitioner to give his objections shall not be converted into a post-decisional hearing. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, he shall be at liberty to pursue his remedy under the Act. Disposed of. Dasti. April 04, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE