IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4080 of 2005 1. NAND KUMAR RAI @NAND KISHORE RAI, S/O KULDEP RAI, RESIDENT OF GULJARPUR, P.S.- SAHAR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR 2. SRI KRISHNA RAI SON OF LATE RAJDEO RAI, RESIDENT OF GULJARPUR, P.S.- SAHAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR …….PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHOJPUR, ARA 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BHOJPUR, ARA 4. OFFICER INCHARGE SAHAR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR ……RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Smt. Sudha Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, J.C. to G.A.VII. ----------- 2. 19.01.2009 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.7.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara in Cr.Misc.No.1094 of 2004, whereby while suspending the license of the fire arms he had given the petitioners to show cause as to why the licences be not cancelled. Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that before cancellation of license it was incumbent upon the District Magistrate to give the petitioners opportunity of hearing. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. A Division bench of this Court had the occasion to consider this question in detail in the case of Jagdamba Singh @ Markandya versus The State of Bihar & anr. [1993(2) PLJR 107], in which it has been held that requirement of giving prior notice before suspension of licence can be dispensed with in 2 certain circumstances. Relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench reads as follows : “However, the aforesaid requirement of giving prior notice before cancellation or suspension of licence can be dispensed with in certain circumstances and the licensing authority after cancellation or suspension of the licence will afford subsequently an opportunity of hearing and making a representation against the order of canceling or suspending the licence. After all, the rules of natural justice are not the ends in themselves, they are means of achieve ends of justice. Its object is to advance cause of justice and to keep the arbitrary actions within limits. It is well settled that in public interest and in emergent situation the observance of natural justice can be excluded absolutely or it can be regulated in such a way which would preserve the rule of law. It is equally well settled that the court has been circumvent in extending the rules of audi alteram partem in a situation where it would cause more injustice than justice. If in an emergent situation where the activities of the licence holders of the firearms cannot be prevented otherwise than by taking recourse to cancel or revoke the licence and direct him to deposit the arms the licensing authority in such a situation would be justified in canceling/revoling the licence and directing the licence-holder to deposit the arms even without affording a prior opportunity of hearing for the reason that giving of an opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the said order would not be possible in such a situation and giving prior notice will defeat the very object of the action proposed to be taken.” In view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the suspending of the arms licence cannot be faulted only on the ground that prior notice was given. 3 I do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed in limine. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, ACJ.) Narendra/