'JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J.---This petition has been presented against the order dated 5-4-2006 passed by Joint Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior, which is reproduced as under: - "It has been reported that Sardar Akhtar Mangil is guilty of abduction of persons belonging to law enforcing agency, manhandling and illegal confinement at his residence House No,29/3, Khayaban-e-Shamshir, St. No,31, Phase-V, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi.
2. Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan has decided that all Arm Licenses issued to Sardar Akhtar Mangil by the Federal Government and other Provinces are hereby cancelled on the basis of gross violation of law."
'In view of above order, arms licenses issued to petitioner by Federal as well as Provincial Governments were cancelled. Copies of the orders were circulated to respective Provincial Home Secretaries, on the basis of said order, Government of Balochistan, Home and Tribal Affairs (Arms Section), through its Secretary, has ordered cancellation of arms licenses granted to the petitioner vide order dated 5-4-2006, hence this petition.
'The Federal and Provincial Governments have filed their para-wise comments, raising legal objection regarding maintainability of petition. On merits, it is mainly contended that arms licenses of petitioner were cancelled for the reasons that he is involved and nominated in the criminal cases.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the orders in question are illegal and unlawful, as the petitioner has been condemned unheard. Similarly, no reasons for cancellation of the licenses have been mentioned and above all, the orders in question are without jurisdiction.
3. On the other hand, Learned Standing Counsel, as well as, Assistant Advocate-General have strongly opposed the contention of petitioner's counsel and raised objection that the petition is not maintainable. They further contended that due to criminal activities, arms licenses of petitioner were cancelled.
'We have considered the arguments of both the learned parties' counsel and have gone through the record of the case. It reveals that the licenses have been granted to the petitioner by a competent authority, therefore, right has been created in his favour. The impugned orders are general in nature, which simply says that all the licenses issued to petitioner by the Federal Government and Provinces are cancelled on the basis of gross violation of law. It is important to mention here that the order has been passed by Joint Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Govemment of Pakistan, but it has not been mentioned that he was also issuing authority or just subordinate to the issuing authority of the licenses.
'It is settled principle of law that arms licenses can be cancelled or suspended under section l2 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965, which is reproduced as under:- "12. Cancellation and suspension of licences.-(11 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 Co-ordination Officer 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, or authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace to cancel or suspend such licence; or
(b) Be 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 licenses throughout the province or any part thereof.
(2) Any 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 die receipt by him of a copy of the orders, where appeal lies to Govemment, and 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 clearly stipulates and specifies the authority that who could cancel or suspend the licenses. The orders impugned do not show, as to whether, the person, who is cancelling the licenses, had the authority to do so. During the arguments, when the learned Standing Counsel was asked as to show the authority of the person concerned, he had failed to satisfy the Court or show his authority. Thus, in such view of the matter, it is proved that the licenses of petitioner have been cancelled by a person having no authority to do so under the law, therefore, the orders impugned are without jurisdiction.
'Apart from above, it is also note- \ worthy that the impugned order passed by the Joint Secretary does not specify the description of particular license issued by Federal Government, however, on his direction, all the licenses of petitioner, which were issued by Provincial Government, were cancelled. Again, question arises, as to whether, he had the authority to interfere in the jurisdiction of provincial authority, who has lawfully granted arms licenses to the petitioner. Admittedly, he has no jurisdiction to cancel the licenses issued by the competent authority of the Provincial Government. It is strange to note here that the provincial government without consulting the relevant provision of law has blindly followed the directions of Joint Secretary of Federal Government and has followed the order by cancelling the arms licenses issued to the petitioner.
'After going through the impugned order dated 5-4-2006, passed by the Secretary, Home and Tribunal Affairs Department, Government of Balochistan, it reveals that his intention was never to cancel the licenses in question, however, they have been forced by the Federal Government to do so, as such, the said order is also void and has no force at all.
'Without prejudice to the above, even otherwise, procedure provided under section l2 of the Ordinance is that holder of arms license, which was validly issued to him, should be given prior show-cause notice for cancellation of the same.
Keeping in view the provision of law, order for cancellation of arms licenses can be passed under section 12(i)(a) of . West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, only after a license-holder was given an opportunity of showing cause against proposed cancellation. Since no notice has been issued to the petitioner, nor any opportunity for hearing was provided to him while cancelling his arms licenses, therefore, the order in such a situation is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Furthermore, the orders impugned are vague and ambiguous in nature as neither any description of single license has been mentioned therein, nor any cogent reason has been assigned. However, it has been mentioned in the order that the petitioner is guilty of abduction of persons belonging to law enforcing agencies, man-handling and illegal confinement at his residence. The respondents have failed to give any detail in respect of any F.I.R. Registered against him in respect of any alleged act.
On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that neither any such case is pending against the petitioner, nor he has been convicted in any case. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner has not been controverted by respondents and they have no answers to the queries in this behalf. Instant petition is pending since May 2006 and the respondents have filed their para-wise comments, but not a single document has been annexed with their reply, similarly, till today, no copy of F.I.R. Has been placed on record in proof of their claim, hence, it is held that the allegation in the impugned order is not only vague, but is baseless, as well.
' As far as contention of learned counsel for respondents is concerned that appeal lies against cancellation of arms licenses, the same has no force at all, because had the competent authority passed order for cancellation of licenses, then, keeping in view the provisions of section l2 of the Ordinance, of course, appeal has been provided, but if the order is not only without jurisdiction, but also is of no lawful authority, then writ is quite competent. In present case, as discussed above that the orders impugned of Federal, as well as, Provincial Government are without jurisdiction and void, therefore, present writ petition is competent.
Reliance has been placed on judgments reported in 1970 PCr.LJ 647, PLD 1981 Lah. 386 and 2001 M LD 94.
5. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, we are inclined to accept the petition, set aside the impugned order dated 5-4-2006 passed by Joint Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, as well as, order impugned dated 5-4-2006 passed by Secretary, Home and Tribal Affairs Department (Arms Section), Government of Balochistan. Resultantly, all the licenses of petitioner cancelled by the respondents through above discussed orders are hereby restored.