MUHAMMAD TARIQ NADEEM, J.---Through this constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner and have challenged the vires of order dated 08-05-2021 passed by respondent No.5 qua the cancellation of arms licenses of the petitioners.
2. It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that before passing the impugned order dated 08-05-2021, the respondent No.5 has not given the right of audience to the petitioner , even no notice has been issued. In this way , the impugned order is nullity in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside.
3. Contrarily , learned Law Officer has apprised the Court that although respondents Nos.5 to 7 have filed their reports and parawise comments but after going through the same it manifests that before passing the impugned order , the respondent No.5 neither given any notice to the petitioners nor they were heard by the respondent No.1, which is against the natural justice.
4. I have straightaway noticed that reports submitted on behalf of respondents Nos.5 to 7 depict that CCPO, Lahore/respondent No.7 has forwarded the matter on the information of SHO, Police Station Naseer Abad, Lahore duly forwarded by DSP/SDPO, Model Town, Circle, Lahore. Similarly , responden t No.5 has only relied upon the report submitted by CCPO, Lahore/respondent No.7. I have observed that respondent No.5 has not applied its independent and judicious mind while passing the impugned order qua the cancellation of arms licenses of the petitioners. Although, respondent No.5 in his comments has given the reference of rule 31 (3) of the Punjab Arms Rules 2017, which is hereby reproduced for ready reference:- "Rule 31 (3)--Cancellation of License:- The DC concerned may dispense with the condition of giving the licensee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, under extraordinary circumstances to be recorded in writing or where, in the opinion of DC, any delay would mean continuation of an illegal activity ."
The supra mentioned Rule described that before cancellation of arms licenses, DC Should have given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the licensee, however , in extra-ordinary circumstance, to be recording in writing or where he is of the opinion that delay would mean continuation of any illegal activity but in the instant case, respondent No.5 has not described any reason for non-giving the right of audience to the petitioners nor any emergency condition, which constrained him to straightaway cancel the licenses of the petitioners. It has been well settled by now that no one should be condemned unheard.
4. In the eventuality of supra mentioned circs, I am of the considered view that respondent No.5 has not followed the law on the subject of cancellation of arms licenses. Resultantly , this petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However , respondent No.5 is at liberty to pass fresh order after giving full right of audience to all the concerned in accordance with law .