ORDER
1. Notice of this writ petition was given to the learned Standing Counsel on 7th June, 1990. However, no counter-affidavit has been filed. As the writ petition can be disposed of on a short legal question. The learned standing counsel has agreed that a counter-affidavit is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. The parties' counsel are agreed that this writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage.
2. Petitioner is a licencee for S.B.B.L. Gun, under which he purchased S.B.B.L. Gun No. 2840. Petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 19-12-1984 as to why his licence may not be cancelled. By this notice, the licence was suspended. The notice has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. In this notice only one criminal case detailed as Crime No. 307/84 under Ss. 302 and 307, I.P.C. has been mentioned. The -petitioner filed his reply in which he stated that he has already been acquitted in the case mentioned in the notice and there is no ground for cancelling his licence. In his reply he also stated that his village is 12 kms. away from the police station Baberu and the keeping of the gun is necessary for the protection of his life and property. The respondent No. 2 by his order dated 18th February, 1988, Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition cancelled the licence of the peti-
tioner. The respondent No. 2 has relied on a criminal case under Ss. 451, 504 and 506, l.P.C. for cancelling the licence on basis of the affidavit filed by police Sub-Inspector. It is pertinent to note here that about this, no, supplementary notice was served on the petitioner calling upon him to give his explanation about the alleged case.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No. 1. At appellate stage, he filed the copy of the order dated 11-9-1981 showing that he was acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1980 arising out of Crime No. 306 of 1984, The respondent No. 3 dismissed the appeal by his order dated 23rd April, 1990 relying on the same criminal case under Ss. 451, 504 and 506, l.P.C.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent No. 3, the present writ petition has been filed for quashing the aforesaid orders.
5. I have learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. In my opinion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not legally justified in basing their orders on a fact which was not mentioned in the show cause notice. Such a course adopted by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is violative of principle of natural justice. Petitioner has categorically stated before respondent No. 2 that no criminal case is pending against him. No particulars of the criminal case of the police station or the crime number has been mentioned in the order. The petitioner could not in such a circumstance, be expected to submit reply or explain of such vague allegation. It was obligatory on the respondent No. 2 to serve an additional or supplementary show cause notice on the petitioner mentioning the alleged new ground proposed to be used against the petitioner for cancellation of the licence. The respondent No. 2 could not use the information supplied by the police by means of a notice or the affidavit during pendency of the case. Even if he was informed by affidavit or by note about the pendency of the criminal case he ought to have immediately served a supplementary notice on petitioner calling for a reply. Without adopting such a course, the respondent No. 2 could not legally reply on the alleged fact. The respondent No. 3 while deciding the appeal has ignored this material aspect of the case, causing a serious prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner has also invited my attention to paragraphs 9 and 10 in which he has stated that in case under Sections 451,504 and 506, IPC. a compromise was filed duly arrived at between the petitioner and the informant. The alleged case is of 1977, the show cause notice was served on the petitioner in 1984. The case remained pending for 7 years and it never occurred to the authorities to cancel the licence of the petitioner on basis of the alleged case. As already stated above the orders passed by the respondent No. 2 was in violation of principle of natural justice and could not be sustained. The respondent No. 3 illegally dismissed the appeal of the petitioner without considering the aforesaid material aspect of the case.
6. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 18-2-1988 and order dated 23-4-1990 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively are hereby quashed. There will be no order as to costs.
7. Petition allowed.