IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6592 of 2011 Sri Kriti Azad @ Chunchun Singh son of Late Umakant Singh, resident of Village- Khojagachhi, P.S. Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Home Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Munger, P.S. & District Munger. 3. The District Magistrate, Sheikhpura, P.S. & District- Sheikhpura. . . . . . . . . . . Respondents. ---------------------------------- 4/ 02.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is holder of Arms license bearing license no.30 of 2003 granted for use of rifle. The said license was cancelled vide Memo no.239 dated 04.04.2009 of District Magistrate, Sheikhpura, which was affirmed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Munger in Arms Appeal No. 18 of 2009 vide order dated 11.08.2010 / 09.12.2010. The petitioner submits that the impugned order of the Collector cancelling his Arms license is bad in law, as the same has been passed without giving show-cause, which is necessary, as it takes away a valuable right of holding license conferred under the provisions of Arms Act. The petitioner further submits that his license has been cancelled under Section 17 (3) (b) of the Act on the ground of breach of public peace. He further submits that all types of conviction would not lead to suspension or revocation of license. According to petitioner, only in case of contravention of non-minor offence, a license of arms can be cancelled. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon a decision in case of Kapildeo Singh Vs. 2 The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1987 PLJR 385. Counsel for the State submits that even in cases of minor conviction, a court is competent to suspend and revoke license under Section 17(7) of the Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order cancelling his license on various grounds mentioned above. As the petitioner would succeed on the first ground, I need not refer and discuss the other grounds raised by his counsel. I find that the impugned order revoking the license of the petitioner has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Grant of license confers right on the petitioner to hold and use arms license for security of his life and property. Cancellation of license deprives the petitioner of such right, which cannot be taken away without providing an opportunity of hearing. As no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order dated 04.04.2009, affirmed in appeal are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector, Sheikhpura. In the result, this application succeeds and is allowed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)