Briefly stated the facts are that a large number of licences to hold arms of prohibited bores were issued by the Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan; from 1-12-1988 onward. Upon dissolution of the National Assembly and dismissal of the Cabinet a notification, vide notification dated 22-8- 1990 issued from the Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control, Government of Pakistan, all those licenses which were issued after 1-12-1988, excepting certain specified persons, were cancelled. The said order was issued by invoking the provisions of section 12 subsection (1), clause (b) of Arms Ordinance, 1965 as amended.
2. Petitioners, whose licenses were thus cancelled, have challenged the order of Federal Government by filing petitions in Constitutional jurisdiction.
3. Alongwith this writ petition other Writ Petition Nos. 732 of 1990, 747 of 1990, 759 of 1990 to 766 of 1990, 768 of 1990, 769 of 1990 to 779 of 1990, 782 of 1990, 787 of 1990, 797 of 1990, 798 of 1990, 804 of 1990, 854 of 1990, 860 of 1990, 2724 of 1999 and 117 of 2000 have also been filed.
4. As a common question of law and facts is involved in all these writ petitions, so these are being disposed of by this order.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on similar points writs had been decided by different High Courts of the Country and finally the matter was agitated in the apex Court, that ' vide judgments rendered in Civil Appeals Nos. 600-K of 1992 to 652-K of 1992 and 652 of 1993, decided on 4-11-1998, it has been held that order of cancellation was not sustainable in the eyes of law, no previous notice had been given to the holders of said licenses before passing the said order and consequently the same have been declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. He further submits that it has been held in the said judgment that after issuing notice the Government will have the authority to decide as to whether the licenses should be allowed to remain operative or not. He submits that a similar relief may be granted to them.
7. Conversely the stand of learned counsel for the State is that vide judgment dated 4-11-1998 the said relief has been granted to those license holders who had approached the Court by that time, that so far as the other affectees are concerned, their case stands closed and they are not entitled to get any benefit of the judgment.
8. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, a reference to section 12 of the Ordinance is necessary which is reproduced as follows: "Cancellation and suspension of licenses.--(1) Any License tray 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 license may be, when, for reason to be recorded in writing, and after giving the holder of the license as 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 license; or
(b) by any Judge or Magistrate before whom the holder of such license is convicted of any offence against this Ordinance or against the rules and Government may, by a notification in the official Gazette cancel or suspend all or and- licenses throughout the Province or an, part thereof.
'(2) As appeal against an order of cancellation or suspension under clause (a) of subsection (1) may be made by the person whose license has been cancelled or suspended to the immediate official superior toy the authority making the order, within sixty flays 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'."
9. It is evident from sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 referred above, that cancellation of a license can be ordered but the said order can only be passed after a license holder is given an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed cancellation of suspension. In the instant case no such opportunity has been provided to the affectees/petitioners. Thus, relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court, referred above, the instant writ petitions are also accepted and the order of cancellation of the arms licences is set aside with the observation that the same is not sustainable in law and, therefore, the same are declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is further ordered that the arms in question which are in custody of the Government functionaries will retrain with them. However, the petitioners, would be issued notices under section 12(1)(a) for showing cause as to why licenses issued in their favour should not be cancelled. After hearing them, the Government or the appropriate authority, will have an authority to decide as to whether the licenses should remain operative or not. The custody of the aforesaid arms will be dealt with in terms of the decision/order to be passed in pursuance to the show-cause notices and according to law.