' The present writ petition is directed against the order, dated 14th July, 1966, passed by the learned District Magistrate, Gujranwala, whereby the petitioner's Arms Licence was cancelled.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the learned District Magistrate, Gujranwala, issued a show-cause notice on 24th May, 1966 requiring the present petitioner to explain as to why his licence to hold revolver should not be cancelled. It was stated in the show-cause notice that the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala, had brought it to his notice that the petitioner was misusing his licensed revolver and a case under section 307, P. P. C. Was also pending against him. In view of these allegations, show-cause notice, as stated above, was issued to the present petitioner. Cause was shown by the present petitioner by filing a reply reproduced below : "It is humbly submitted that I was witness in the case mentioned in the Police report. The case is pending in the Court and I am not charged so far, because the injured P. W. Has not implicated me as accused.
' There is every possibility of my discharge in the said case. The Police report is partial and against the facts.
' It is, therefore, requested that the papers may be filed.
Your humble L. H. T. I.
(Sd.)
GHULAM RASOOL S/O ILAM DIN Caste Tarkhan, r/o Dhirowali, Police Station Sadar, District Gujranwala."
' However, the District Magistrate, Gujranwala, vide his order, dated 14th July, 1966, Appendix-A, cancelled the licence. For reference, the order is quoted below : "Cancel"
(Sd.)
HASNAT, AHMAD, 14/7 Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala".
' Ghulam Rasool, petitioner, has questioned the vires of the order, dated 14th July, 1966 by filing the present writ petition in this Court. It has been stated in the petition that the impugned order offends against the provisions of section 12 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, inasmuch as no reasons whatsoever have been recorded by the District Magistrate for ordering cancellation, nor has it been stated that the licence has been cancelled for security of public peace. It has further been stated in the writ petition that the impugned order is violative of the principle of natural justice in so far as the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to defend himself against the proposed action either before or after it was taken. The reply submitted has also not been considered.
3. The petitioner instead of challenging the order in appeal as provided under subsection (2) of section 12 of the above-stated Ordinance has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and seen the record. It is apparent from the file that show-cause notice was issued by the learned District Magistrate, Gujranwala which, for facility of reference is being produced below :- "It has been brought to my notice by the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala, that you misuse your licensed revolver and a case under section 307, P. P. C. Is pending against you. You have, therefore, not proved yourself fit for the retention of a revolver licence.
' You should, therefore, show-cause in writing within a week of the receipt of this notice as to why your revolver licence No, 593/April should not be cancelled. Ex parte proceedings will be taken if your explanation will not be received within the prescribed period."
(Sd.) for District Magistrate, Gujranwala.
' After the reply was received, contents whereof have been given above, the learned District Magistrate proceeded to pass an order for the cancellation of licence. The order, dated 14th July, 1966 passed by the learned District Magistrate has been reproduced in para No, 2 above.
' 4-A. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on section 12 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 to state that the competent authority, after giving an opportunity of hearing against the proposed cancellation, is competent to cancel the licence in the interest of security of public peace. He has placed reliance upon the case of Muhammad Afzal v. Deputy Commissioner Peshawar (1). Proceeding further, it was submitted that the learned District Magistrate was bound to record reasons in support of his order. Such a sketchy order not disclosing the reasons as to why the licence was being cancelled, is not a valid order under section 12 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. The order being void for non-disclosure of reasons and having been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing either before or after it was passed, is to be struck down in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Section 12 of the Ordinance is reproduced below :- "(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 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 canal 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 Government, and where appeal lies to any other authority, within thirty days of the receipt by him of a copy of the order."
5. The Arms Licence under section 12 can only be cancelled by the competent authority if it is necessary for the security of public peace. The authority empowered to take action is bound, under law, to record reasons in writing while proposing to cancel the arms licence. In this process, the A holder of a licence is entitled to an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed cancellation. The obvious intent of section 12 (1) (a) is that cancellation of a licence which is a penalty must be founded in reasons. The authority, by conscious application of mind, must come to a conclusion
(1) PLD 1967 Pesh. 134 ' that the holder of a licence has, by his own conduct, rendered himself to al penalty for losing the privilege to hold the said licence and retention of licence by him will endanger the public peace.
6. The order passed under section 12 (1) (a) for cancelling the licence is appealable under section 12 (2). The authority dealing with the matter, therefore, in view of the fact that an appeal lies against its order, is bound to make available the grounds/reasons by which it was necessary to cancel the licence. This is evidently necessary to show that the authority competent to take action has objectively considered the grounds after due application of mind. Further, it enables the appellate authority also to evaluate the reasons which weighed with the authority for ordering cancellation of the licence. In this view of the matter, the learned District Magistrate, who has cancelled the licence by merely writing the word "cancel" has not acted correctly in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, which is the source of his powers.
7. Such orders have not to be passed upon mere subjective satisfaction. The right of a person to hold licence for arms after it has been granted by the competent authority is a valuable right of which he can only be deprived of in accordance with law governing the subject. Public functionaries charged with duty of adjudicating upon the rights of the parties must act in accordance with law in order to avoid the impression of arbitrariness. Justice should not only be done but should seem to have been done. Making of such laconically brief and sketchy orders as has been passed in this case have not been approved by the superior Courts. Reliance is placed on Abdul Qadir v. The Presiding Officer Punjab and others (1) and Dr. Muhammad Ismail v. Deputy Commissioner, Jhang, etc. (2). This smacks of arbitrariness. The learned District Magistrate, therefore, was duty bound in law to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner " and record reasons in support of his order, dated 14th July, 1966. In somewhat similar circumstances, it was observed by the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Haider Ali v. Ejaz Hussain Malik etc. (3) that the order without recording reasons or the scrutiny of reasons, is not an c order properly covered by section 12 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. I can do no better than to quote extracts from the said report which is as under :- "Comparing this section to section 18 of the Arms Act of 1978, which has been replaced by it, it will be seen that the show-cause notice is a new ingredient in section 12 which was not there in section 18 (old) and this addition must be given its full effect. When a show-cause notice is given the object is that the person on whom it is served gets an opportunity to explain the allegations against him for which action is proposed to be taken. If the show cause notice is not to be reduced to a mere formality, the contents of the reply in response to the show-cause notice must receive due consideration. The grounds mentioned in the show-cause notice cannot become reasons for the action that may be taken unless the grounds are tested in the light of the explanation tendered and stand the scrutiny of the authority who has to take action on an objective assessment of the material supplied in proof of the allegations contained in the show cause
(1) PLD 1975 Lah. 44 (2) PLD 1976 Lah. 758
(3) 1968 P Cr. L J 127 ' notice. When the statute enjoins that the reasons must be recorded in writing, the plain meaning is that the reasons must be manifested in the order itself to be self-explanatory for the purpose of showing that the order has a foundation in reason and is not capricious or arbitrary. We consider that whereas the grant of a licence is a privilege, the conferment of which lies in the domain of executive authority once the privilege is conferred by the grant of a licenee, its withdrawal or revocation is a "penalty" which falls within the sphere of criminal jurisprudence. When a penalty is imposed on an individual, which injures his person or property the processes of the law as laid down for the imposition of the penalty must be strictly observed.
' It was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the State that revocation of licences must be left to the determination of the revoking authorities in their subjective satisfaction. As already stated above, the withdrawal of a licence is a penalty and the act of imposing a penalty must be based on an objective assessm ent of the material on which it is made and the matter cannot be left to the arbitrary will or caprice of the revoking authority. When the statute requires that the revoking authority must give reasons for its action, we feel that the issue then travels outside the mere subjective satisfaction of the authority and reaches a domain where the absence of reasons or the scrutiny of the reasons will fall for determination of the High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution.lA ' When judged in the light of principle of law laid down it becomes crystal clear that the impugned order is not a valid order, for the reasons are conspicuously absent.
8. Confronted with the above situation, the learned Assistant Advocate-General raised an objection qua the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the order passed by the learned District Magistrate was subject to appeal under section 12 (2) of the Arms Ordinance and as the petitioner had not exhausted the legal remedy available to him under the law, he is not entitled to the grant of relief under the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Ordinarily, the writ will not lie where there is another adequate remedy available by way of appeal, but then, when the right inhering in a person cannot be preserved otherwise, there is no legal bar to the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction to set right an obvious wrong done to a person by acting in disregard of law. Even otherwise, the present writ petition was admitted to regular hearing as far back as 29th January, 1968 and to hold that the writ is not maintainable at this time will cause grave miscarriage of justice. The order being perfunctory in disregard of section 12 of the Arms Ordinance which is the source o F power for cancellation of the licence lacks lawfulness of authority. The writ petition is accepted, order, dated 14th July, 1966 passed by the learned District Magistrate is declared to have been passed without lawful authority. It is set aside and case is remanded to the District Magistrate: to redecide the same in accordance with law after affording opportunity oil hearing to the petitioner.
9. Since the matter pertains to the year 1968, the learned District Magistrate is directed to decide it as expeditiously as is humanly possible.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.