' This petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1962 is directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Lahore dated 3-4-1968 dismissing petitioners' appeal and upholding the order dated 20-2-1968 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate Kasur whereby shot-gun licence of the petitioners were cancelled.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that all the petitioners except Muhammad Ashraf, petitioner No, 3 were granted licences of shot-guns by the District Magistrate, Lahore in December, 1965. Muhammad Ashraf petitioner however, was given licence by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kusur in December, 1965.
On 1-8-1967, Sardar Khan Lambardar of petitioners' Chak No, 17 was murdered whereupon a case under section 302/307, P. P. C. Was registered against one Cnahat Khan and his four companions.
Delay Khan, Chandu Khan and Malooka petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 6 were cited as P. Ws. In that cases.
Some 4/5 months before this incident, a theft had taken place in the shop of Malooks petitioner No,
6. Some persons belonging to Chahat Khan's party were arrested in that theft case. On account of these incidents, there was a party friction in the village and the local police took action under section 107/151, Cr. P. C. Against both the parties. But despite this action, apprehension of breach of peace continued. Additional Superintendent of Police, Kasur, therefore, submitted a report to S. D. M.
Kasur vide a Memo. No, 3650, dated 2-2-1968 (Annexure 'R' with the parawise comments) seeking cancellation of the petitioners' arms licences:
3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kasur issued show-cause notice to the petitioners and after hearing them through their counsel, agreed to the report of the Additional Superintendent of Police and apprehension expressed therein that serious breach of peace was feared in the village. He, therefore, in exercise of his powers under rule 43 (I)(a) and (aa) of the Arms Rules, 1924 cancelled the licences of all the petitioners by order dated 20-2-1968. Petitioners preferred an appeal which was dismissed by District Magistrate, Lahore by order dated 3-4-1968 holding that in view of the circumstances mentioned in the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the latter' had good reasons to take action by way of cancellation of the arms licences of the petitioners. These orders were challenged in the present Constitutional petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised two contentions. His first contention was that the local police was annoyed with Malooka petitioner because on his complaint, S. S. P. Lahore after calling for the comments from the Incharge of Police Post Chhanga Manga transferred the investigation of the theft case to C. I. A. Lahore. According to learned counsel, local police, therefore, became inimical towards Malooka, Delay Khan and Chandu Khan petitioners and taking benefit of the murder incident aforementioned moved the higher authorities for the cancellation of their arms licences. I find no merit in this contention. Facts reported by the Additional Superintendent of Police clearly show that there were two parties in the village which were at daggers drawn with each other and the party friction had already resulted in the murder of Sardar Khan Lambardar. Police, therefore, rightly apprehended the likelihood of further breach of peace and recommended cancellation of the arms licences to avert the same. Thus, the recommendation/request of the addressed to S. D. M. Was motivated by considerations of public and not by any ulterior motive such as suggested/submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. It was next contended by the learned counsel that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not competent to cancel the licences granted by the District Magistrate. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon section 12 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder :- "Section 12(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 cancel or suspend such licence."
' Submission of the learned counsel was that according to the provision afore-referred, a licence could be cancelled or suspended by the Officer who had granted it or by his higher authority or by the District Magistrate and as such licences of the petitioner other than the licence of petitioner No, 3 could not be cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as he was not the authority who granted licences to them. He granted the licence only to petitioner No, 3 and was therefore, competent to cancel his licence. According to learned counsel, licences of other petitioners could be cancelled by the District Magistrate who admittedly had granted them.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the Sub- Divisional Magistrate was competent to cancel the licences of all the petitioners. He referred to a notification dated 27-4-1962 (Annexure `R/I') issued under rule 33(1) of the Arms Rules, 1924 whereby all the Sub-Divisional Magistrates in the then West Pakistan were empowered to issue arms licences for .22 bore rifles and guns. Learned counsel, in support of his submission, further relied upon rule 43 of the Arms Rules, relevant provision of which is quoted hereunder :- "43. (1) Every authority empowered to grant or renew a licence or to give his previous sanction to such grant or renewal may in his direction :-
(a) refuse to grant or renew such licence or to give such sanction, or (aa) cancel or suspend a licence."
Argument of the learned counsel for the respondents was that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate having been empowered under the aforesaid notification to issue an arms licence was also competent to cancel the licences of the petitioners by virtue of the rule 43 (1) (aa).
7. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the respondents. Sub-Divisional Magistrate was no doubt, empowered by the aforesaid B notification to issue the arms licences and rule 43(1) (aa) afore quoted also gave him the power to cancel or suspend a licence but the provisions! Of this rule are subject to section 12 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance! Which lays down in very clear terms that a licence may be cancelled or suspended by the Officer by which it was granted or by any authority to which that Officer may be subordinate. If the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted then Sub-Divisional Magistrate would be competent to cancel the licence granted by the District Magistrate which is clearly against the plain language of section 12 of the Ordinance. This interpretation would make rule inconsistent with the main Statute. Rule, in order to be effective, must remain consistent with the Act and it cannot be interpreted so as to render the relevant provisions of the Statute, nugatory. In my view, meaning of rule 43, consistent with the provisions of section 12 of the Arms Ordinance, is that every authority who has beeni empowered to grant or renew a licence can also cancel or suspend a licence granted by him.
8. In the aforesaid view of the matter and in the context of the admitted facts of the present case, it is held that the licences in question which were granted by the District Magistrate could not be cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Consequently the impugned order of the; Sub- Divisional Magistrate cancelling the arms licences of petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal! Effect. However, order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in so far as it cancelled the licence of Muhammad Ashraf petitioner No, 3 does not call for any interference because the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was competent to cancel the same. Writ petition accordingly, is allowed partly with no order as to costs.