' FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-The action impugned in these two petitions is one under M. L.
0. 64 cancelling the fire-arms licences of the petitioners. Under the said M. L.
0. Such licences could be cancelled if the licensee is found to be an undesirable person and not a person fit to hold the licence. In both the cases the grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned orders were made without any notice to the petitioners and in a routine manner. The learned Additional Advocate-General was good enough to invite our attention to a D. B. Decision reported in PLD 1979 Kar. 732 in which it has been held that a finding that a licence holder is an undesirable person and not fit to hold fire-arm licence, could not be recorded without serving the petitioner with a show-cause notice and/or at least granting him hearing, because the cancellation of a licence under the said M. L. O. 64 carries with it a stigma that the petitioner was an undesirable person. We are not only bound by this decision but are in respectful agreement and for the same reasons, the impugned orders in these two petitions are held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.