1989 PLP 189 (PCRLJ)

TANZIL‑UR‑REHMAN, J.‑‑ This is a Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 challenging the orders dated 20th July, 1988 passed by the District Magistrate, Sukkur cancelling licence for a gun issued to the petitioner. Against that decision the petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of Commissioner, Sukkur which was dismissed by his order dated 6‑11‑1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not given proper opportunity for taking action against the petitioner in cancelling the licence. The submission does not seem to be correct. The order dated 20th July, 1988 passed by the District Magistrate clearly stales that the "licensee has failed to furnish the reply of the show‑cause notice issued to him‑‑‑‑This shows that he has no mind to pursue this case". The learned counsel next submits that the order of the learned Commissioner states no reasons. This submission too does not seem to be correct. It is a two‑ page order and the relevant observation reads as under:‑ "Heard the Advocate for the appellant. Perused the impugned order of the District Magistrate, Sukkur. Also seen the case papers of District Magistrate Office, Sukkur and Senior Superintendent of Police, produced by their representatives. It has been reported that the appellant is involved in the criminal case lodged at Police Station Ghokti, as it is evident from F.I.R. No.251/87 (under sections 307/34, 336, P.P.C.) The case is reported to be pending in the Sessions Court. Further perusal of the order of the District Magistrate, Sukkur, shows that right procedure has been adopted by the D.M. i.e. issue of show‑cause notice etc. to the appellant. The appellant is involved in a criminal case and it appears that he is not fit to hold licence for keeping arms." The above extract from the impugned order reveals that the learned Commissioner took into consideration the material placed before him and after hearing the petitioner and his counsel maintained the order passed by the learned District Magistrate. Section 12 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 which has been relied upon by the learned counsel 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 by 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; or (b) by any Judge or Magistrate before whom the holder of such licence is convicted of an offence against this Ordinance or against the rules and Government may, by a notification in the official Gazette, cancel or suspend all or any licences throughout the Province or any part thereof. (2) An appeal against an order of cancellation or suspension under clause (a) of subsection (1) may be made by the person whose licence has been cancelled or suspended to the immediate official superior to the authority making the order, within sixty days of the receipt by him of a copy of the order where appeal lies to any other authority, within thirty days of the receipt by him of a copy of the order." The above provision of law makes it obligatory before cancelling the licence that a show‑cause notice must be issued to the licence‑holder before cancellation and that the reasons must be given for cancelling the licence. Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel on the Lahore case Ali Haider v. Ijaz Hussain Malik and others 1968 P Cr. L J 127, but the said case is distinguishable as in the cited case neither a show‑cause notice was issued nor reasons were given for the order pasted by the authority concerned for cancelling the licence. We are of the view that the impugned orders in this case do fulfil both the conditions laid down in section 12 of the Arms Ordinance and the same do not seem to have been passed without jurisdiction. For the above said reasons the petition is dismissed in limine. A.A./Q‑20/K Petition dismissed