1995 PLP 1101 (MLD)

Bilal Ahmad Qazi for Petitioner. S. M. Rizvi, A. A. G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th January, 1995. The petitioner Muhammad Sadiq is aggrieved by the order of Assistant Commissioner/Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Khanpur, dated 23rd of August, 1994, whereby he cancelled the licence of the petitioner held by him for the rifle. The action for cancellation of the petitioner's licence was initiated by the Assistant Commissioner on the basis of an application moved by one Khair Muhammad son of Hayat Muhammad, duly recommended by the concerned S.H.O., alleging therein that the petitioner was involved in criminal cases, i.e. F.I.R. No. 23/85 dated 30‑‑1‑1985 under section 411, P.P.C. and F.I.R. No. 59/89 dated 16‑3‑1989 under section 324, P.P.C. and that he misuses the licensed rifle.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed cancellation nor the Assistant Commissioner has recorded reasons in his cancellation order.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Law Officer and have perused the record.

4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in both the abovementioned cases. The application was moved on 25‑7‑1994 by the applicant/respondent No. 2 Khair Muhammad, the S.H.O. had recommended the application on the same date, i.e. 25‑7‑1994, alleging the petitioner as professional criminal, without giving and mentioning the facts of criminality or details of criminal cases registered against him. On 26‑7‑1994, the Assistant Commissioner ordered for issuance of summons to the petitioner for 8‑1‑1994, on which date, neither the petitioner appeared nor the receipt of acknowledgment of summon was received in the Court of the Assistant Commissioner and the matter was fixed for 23‑8‑1994. The main objection to the impugned order is that it does not record any reason for the action taken; which is in disregard to the statutory requirements of section 12 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, which provides provision for cancellation and suspension of an armed licence and it would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant portion thereof which reads as under:‑‑‑ "

12. Cancellation and suspension of licences.‑‑‑(1) Any licence may be cancelled or suspended‑‑ (a) by the officer by whom the same was granted or by any authority to which he may be subordinate or any District Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the holder of such licence may be, when, for reasons to be recorded in writing, and after giving the holder of the licence an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed cancellation or suspension, such officer, authority or Magistrate deems it necessary for the security of the public peace to cancel or suspend such licence;" It is manifest that the Assistant Commissioner has not recorded any reason nor issued any show‑cause notice against the proposed action of cancellation nor heard the petitioner while passing the impugned order. The grant of a licence is a privilege, the conferment of licence is the domain of the executive authority and once the privilege is granted by the competent authority, its withdrawal is penalty which falls within sphere of criminal jurisprudence when a penalty is imposed on an individual, it injures his person or property, the process of law as laid down for the imposition of the penalty must be strictly observed.

5. As withdrawal of a licence is penalty and the act of imposing a penalty must be based on objective assessment of the material on which it is made and B the matter cannot be left to the contrary will of the revoking authority as laid down in the case of Ali Haider v. Ijaz Hussain Malik, D. M., Rawalpindi and Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division (1968 P Cr. L J 127 (Lahore). When the Ordinance itself requires that the revoking authority must give reasons for its action which has not been done, otherwise the reasons given in the application C are baseless, as the petitioner has already been acquitted in the cases mentioned in the application. For the above said reasons, I, while accepting this writ petition, hold that the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner is without lawful D authority and of no legal effect. The same is therefore, quashed. N.H.Q./M‑1980/L Petition allowed.