IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16482 of 2004 1. SIDHA NATH SINGH son of late Tapsi Singh, resident of village-Jalpura, P.S.-Paliganj, Distt.- Patna. 2. Chandra Deo Singh son of late Rameshwar Singh, resident of village-Moriawan, P.S. Bikramganj, Distt.-Patna. ................Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Officer-in-charge, Paliganj, Police Station, Patna. 3. The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Patna. 5. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna ................Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Chhote Lal Nr. Singh, S.C. I ----------- 5/ 13.12.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition assailing the validity and legality of the order dated 28.09.2004 (Annexure-6) passed in case no. 130 of 1999 by the Respondent Divisional Commissioner, whereby the aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and the original order dated 02.07.1999 (Annexure-5) passed by Respondent District Magistrate, cancelling the arms licences of the petitioners has been affirmed. The petitioners were granted arms licence by the licensing authority under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and 2 same were renewed from time to time by the competent authority. It appears that a criminal case bearing Paliganj P.S. Case No. 50 of 1997 dated 13.04.1997 under section 25 (1-B) (a)/26/35 of the Arms Act was registered in which the petitioners were arrayed as accused. A show case notice dated 6.08.1998 (Annexure-7) was issued by the Respondent District Magistrate asking the petitioners to show cause as to why their licences be not cancelled on the ground mentioned therein. The petitioners claim to have submitted their show case by Annexures-3 and Annexure-4 and disputed the allegation made against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as a matter of fact, the petitioners are not specifically named as accused in Paliganj P.S. Case No. 50 of 1997 dated 13.04.1997, but during the course of investigation they were arrayed as accused. The fire arms, seized by the police, were released to the petitioners by virtue of order dated 29th November 1997 passed in Cr. Revision No. 230 of 1997 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Patna. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on plain perusal of order dated 02.07.1999 (Annexure-5), it is apparent that District 3 Magistrate has not cancelled the licences of the petitioners for the reasons mentioned in the show case dated 06.08.1998 (Annexure-7), but their licences have been cancelled on altogether different grounds that they have been giving some protection to the Ranveer Sena, a banned organisation. In his submission, reasons for which petitioners’ licences have been cancelled, they were not given reasonable opportunity of being heard, and, therefore, the order passed by Respondent District Magistrate is in complete violation of principles of natural justice. Besides that order passed by Respondent District Magistrate is cryptic one. It is also submitted that appellate authority has not applied his judicial mind to the facts of the case, rather he has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners for the same reasons as recorded by the Respondent District Magistrate. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the impugned orders passed by the respondents and has submitted that on the basis of confidential enquiry, it was found that petitioners were protectors of the members of Ranveer Sena and they were found misusing their arms and as such the Respondent District Magistrate has rightly cancelled their arms licences. 4 However, learned counsel for the State has fairly conceded that for the reasons for which arms licences of the petitioners have been cancelled opportunity of hearing was not given to them. After hearing the parties and on perusal of materials available on records, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of cancellation of the arms licences of the petitioners cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The Respondent District Magistrate was obliged to give reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order cancelling their licences. This Court further finds that the order passed by Respondent District Magistrate is cryptic one, which does not indicate as to how the petitioners have been protected the members of Ranveer Sena and whether the petitioners are accused in some other criminal case relating to incident/occurrence committed by the members of Ranveen Sena. Entire matter is required to be reconsidered afresh by the Respondent District Magistrate, the licensing authority. For the reasons recorded above, the original order dated 02.07.1999(Annexure-5) passed by the Respondent District Magistrate and the appellate order dated 28.09.2004 5 passed by the Respondent Divisional Commissioner are set aside and matter is remitted to the District Magistrate, Patna to pass a fresh speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners . It is made clear that even after setting aside of the impugned orders, the licences of the petitioners shall not necessarily revive. Revival of the licences of the petitioners shall abide by the fresh decisions taken by the District Magistrate in accordance with law. The petitioners should appear before the District Magistrate, Patna with a representation accompanied by a certified copy of this order within a period of one month from today and respondent District Magistrate shall pass a fresh speaking order within a period of three months from the date of filing of such application by the petitioners. Application stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. No costs. Anjani/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )