' S. A. NUSRAT, J.-The petitioner has challenged the order of the respondent No, 1 dated 21-9-1978, whereby his revolver License No, 4078/HYD City dated 24-3-1976 was cancelled under the provisions of Martial Law Order No,
64. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice inasmuch as he was neither given any show-cause notice nor heard in the matter before passing of the order.
2. Martial Law Order No, 64, issued by the M. L. A. Zone "C", provides as per paragraph 2 thereof as under:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or rule for the time being in force, a District Magistrate shall review the licenses for firearms issued between 1st January, 1972, and 31st December, 1976, and if he is satisfied that any such licensee is an undesirable person and is not fit to hold the license he shall cancel his license."
' The requirement of the above provision necessarily is that before cancelling any arms license the Deputy Commissioner concerned must satisfy himself that the licensee was an undesirable person and not fit to hold a license. Such finding could be given only after enquiry and it is prerequisite of law that the person concerned, against whom the enquiry is held, must be given an opportunity of hearing before any adverse order is passed against him.
3. The learned Advocate-General contended that the petitioner had failed to avail of the alternate remedy of filing an appeal to the Government as provided in paragraph 3 of the M. L.
0. We, however, find that the impugned order was issued on a cyclostyled pro forma and was passed by the learne District Magistrate without applying his mind as the order does not show that he was satisfied that the petitioner was an undesirable person and not fi to hold license. Such a finding could only be recorded after serving the petitioner with a show-cause notice and/or at least granting him a hearing more particularly, because the cancellation of license under the M. L.
O. Carries with it a stigma that the petitioner was an undesirable person. Since the impugned order did not disclose any grounds the petitioner had nothing to urge in appear before the Government, if he was to file one, as provided under paragraph 3 of the M. L.
0.
4. For the above reasons we would allow this petition and declare that the impugned order dated 21-9-1978 was passed by the Respondent No, 1 without lawful authority. The petition thus succeeds but there will be no order as to costs.