2012 PLP 1881 (MLD)

IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the show cause notice dated 15-6-2012 which is signed by the AO (CO&D)/Officer Incharge, Arms Licensing Branch, DCO Office, Lahore is without jurisdiction and violative of section 12(1-A) of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of section 12(1-A), a show cause notice can only be issued by the officer by whom the same was issued in the first instance or by an officer to whom he may be subordinate or any DCO. It is argued that the show cause notice in question has not been issued by any of the aforesaid three officers and, therefore, is void ab initio. The learned counsel further submits that in terms of section 12 of the Pakistan Arms Licence Ordinance, 1965, a license cannot be cancelled unless reasons are recorded in writing and alter giving the holder of die license an opportunity of hearing against the proposed cancellation or suspension. Further the concerned officer or authority must deem such cancellation necessary for the security of public peace. The learned counsel adds that the impugned show cause notice is deficient in that respect also insofar as neither a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner nor does the notice indicate any reason which prevailed with the issuing authority to issue the notice for suspension/cancellation of license. It is argued that the show-cause notice is not a valid show cause notice as visualized in section 12 ibid. He points out that the impugned show-cause notice merely reproduces the order passed by the Home Secretary dated 8-5-2012. It is finally argued that in an earlier petition bearing Writ Petition No.14474 of 2012, this Court through order dated 7-6-2012 had set aside certain portions of the order passed by the Home Secretary. The portions, which had specifically been set aside by this Court, have again been incorporated in the aforesaid show-cause notice, which indicate non-application of mind in issuing the said Notice.

3. The learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has produced an order dated 8-10-2007 issued by the DCO, Lahore. Through the impugned order the Administrative Officer (Conduct) DCO Office, Lahore has been nominated as Incharge Arms Licensing Branch, DCO Office, Lahore. He has been authorized to deal with all issues relating to Arms License Branch. In producing: the said document, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the DCO had delegated his powers to the aforesaid officer in terms of the order noted above. Consequently, he was duly authorized to issue the show cause notice. He further argues that in issuing the show cause notice, the said officer was merely acting on behalf of the DCO and in fact all proceedings in pursuance of show cause notice including hearing of the respondent would be conducted by the DCO himself.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parites and gone through the record. Prima facie, the order dated 8-10-2007 reproduced above does not delegate any of the powers enjoyed by DCO in terms of section 12 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. Further, it appears that powers under section 12(1-A) of the Ordinance cannot be delegated atleast in the manner adopted in the order dated 8-10-2007. Even otherwise, the show cause notice ex-facie does not indicate that it is being issued in representative/delegated capacity.

5. In view of the foregoing, I find that the show cause notice has incompetently been issued and is not sustainable at law. It is accordingly declared to be null and void. In view of my finding that the aforesaid show cause notice has been issued without jurisdiction, I do not consider it necessary to record any findings on other assertions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner lest it should prejudice the case of any party, if any proceedings are initiated by the DCO at any stage.

6. In view of the foregoing, this petition is allowed to the extent that the show cause notice dated 15-6-2012 is declared null, void, without lawful lawful authority and of no legal effect. However, the competent authority under section 12-A of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 is not precluded from initiating fresh proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. MWA/I-31/L Petition allowed.