ORDER S.H.A. Raza, J.
1. All the four writ petitions involve common questions of facts and laws, hence they are being decided by a common judgment.
2. The petitioners filed the writ petitions assailing the respective orders of suspension of their Arms Licences granted earlier to them and against the show-cause notices issued to them to explain as to why their licences granted earlier be not cancelled. The notices indicate that the petitioners were involved in certain criminal cases and the antecedents of the licence holders were as such which warranted suspension of their licences in public interest. On the basis of the police reports the respective District Magistrates while suspending their licences directed the petitioners to surrender their Arms to the police.
3. Relying upon the precedents of this Court in Vinod Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. 1994 (2) ALR 30 and Abdul Aziz v. Commissioner, Faizabad Division 1993 (11) LCD 619 it was vehemently contended that under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act the licensing authority can suspend the licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke it on being satisfied on any of the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act, meaning thereby that the suspension orders could be passed only for a specified period and such orders cannot be passed for indefinite period, pending enquiry or pendency of a criminal case against the licence holder.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that the decisions in Vinod Kumar Verma (supra) and Abdul Aziz (supra) were delivered by Hon'ble the learned single Judges. Both the Hon'ble single Judges have taken the view, that if the period for which the arms licence has been suspended has not been indicated in the order then that order would be totally vitiated and can be quashed.
5. Before dealing with the observations made in the cases mentioned hereinabove, it would be relevant to consider the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in Kailash Nath v. State 1985 AWC 493 : (AIR 1985 All 291) and the earlier Full Bench decision in Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. State of U.P. 1984 AWC 145. It is pertinent to mention here that the Full Bench in Chhanga Prasad Sahu (supra) consisted of three Judges while the Full Bench which decided Kailash Nath (supra) consisted of five Judges.
6. In Chhanga Prasad Sahu (supra) the questions which came up for consideration before the Full Bench were, as to whether the licensing authorities were empowered to suspend an Arms Licence, pending enquiry into cancellation or suspension; and whether, in view of the statutory provisions, was it incumbent upon the authorities to afford an opportunity of hearing prior to suspension pending enquiry. The Full Bench in Chhanga Prasad Sahu (supra) after considering the provisions contained in Sections 17 and 18 of the Arms Act indicated :
A perusal of abovementioned provisions indicates that the licensing authority has been given the power to suspend or revoke an arms licence only if any of the conditions mentioned in Sub-clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act exists, Sub-section (5) of Section 17 makes it obligatory upon the licensing authority to, while passing the order revoking/suspending an arms licence, record in writing the reasons therefor and to, on demand, furnish a brief statement thereof to the holder of the licence unless it considers that it will not be in public interest to do so. According to this section, the stage for recording of the reasons for cancelling or suspending an arms-licence- is reached only when such an order is made and not before it. A brief statement of such reasons is to be communicated to the, licensee only if;
(i) the licensee asks for it, and
(ii) the licencing authority does not consider disclosure of such reason to be against public interest.
It was further observed :
The provision that the reasons for revocation/suspension of an arms licence is to be recorded when the licensing authority makes the order and that a brief statement thereof is to be communicated only if the licensee demands it and that too only where the licensing authority does not consider disclosure of such reasons to be against public interest, makes the legislative intention that, if at all, the licensing authority is obliged to communicate to the licensee the grounds for revocation/suspension of the licence only after the order for revocation/suspension has been made, absolutely clear. This provision rules out any obligation on the part of the licensing authority to, before making such order, communicate the grounds for revoking or suspending the licence, to the licensee. Accordingly, placing of any obligation on the licensing authority to notify the grounds for revoking or suspending the licence, to the licensee before the order for revocation or suspension of the licence is made, would result in forcing the licensing authority to do something which the statute does not oblige it to do. Such compulsion flowing from any source whatsoever would not be in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act.
7. Refuting the submission that the licensing authority, on the basis of principles of natural justice is bound to afford an opportunity to the licensee to show cause against the proposed action the Full Bench in Chhanga Prasad Sahu (supra) observed that in view of the statutory provisions contained in Sections 17 and 18 of the Arms Act it was clear that the legislature had in its wisdom thought that in such cases an opportunity of being heard should be afforded to the licensee at a stage following suspension/revocation of the licence and not prior to it.
8. In Kailash Nath (supra) the Full Bench consisting of five judges was called upon to answer the question as to whether the dictum in Chhanga Prasad Sahu (supra) runs counter to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597.
9. After delving in details about the facts and circumstances of the case and the observations made in the Maneka Gandhi (supra) Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. M.N. Shukla (as he then was) with whom three other Hon'ble Judges agreed observed :
...I am of the opinion that the law laid down in paragraph 16 in Chhanga Prasad Sahu's case (supra) extracted in the earlier part of this judgment must be supplemented by the further observations that after taking the provisional action of immediate revocation of the licence the licensing authority must issue notice to the licence holder giving him an opportunity to file objections against the preliminary order and after hearing him proceed to pass the final order which may either affirm or revoke the provisional order. In other words, it is incumbent upon the licensing authority to refrain from attaching finality to the order of cancellation until the aggrieved petitioner has been heard by such authority and his objections have been adjudicated. The licensing authority can also for the furtherance of his immediate remedial action exercise the incidental power of directing the licence holder to surrender his licence until the objections have been decided. It follows that in the event of the objections being allowed the licence as well as the fire arm must be restored to the licence holder. In Smt. Maneka Gandhi's case (supra) the Supreme Court in its final order did not set aside the impugned order of impounding the passport, instead it merely allowed the petitioner to make a representation and issued direction that the representation should be dealt with expeditiously by the Passport Authority.
10. Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. N. Seth (as he then was) in his separate judgment observed in paragraph 24 of the report that "the action of revoking/suspending an arms licence would be valid and be in accordance with law if the licensing authority, after making the order, affords to the concerned person an opportunity of making a representation setting forth his case and plead for its setting aside." In paragraph 27 of the report Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. N. Seth held :
In my opinion, the observations made in C. P. Sahu's case do not carry any such implication. What was intended to be laid down therein was that in view of the statutory provisions contained in the Arms Act the licensee could not, on the principles of natural justice, claim a right of hearing before the order of revocationor suspension of his arms licence was made and that it was open to him to have his grievances redressed by way of appeal wherein he was to get in accordance with principles of natural justice a full hearing to defend himself. The question whether in accordance with the principles of natural justice the party whose licence had been revoked/suspended was entitled to a post-decisional remedial hearing before the licensing authority and whether the question of principles of natural justice did not stand excluded to that extent was neither canvassed before, nor dealt with by the Full Bench. Accordingly, we are of opinion that nothing should be read in the Full Bench decision of this Court in C. P. Sahu's case which may imply that in case of revocation/suspension of arms licence the licensee is not, on the principles of natural justice, entitled to post-decisional remedial hearing before the licensing authority itself. In such cases the licensee has at his option, two remedies, namely, one to apply for post-decisional remedial hearing to the licensing authority itself and the other by going up in appeal against the order revoking/suspending his licence. It is open to the licensee to follow either of the two remedies or even to claim a post-decisional remedial hearing before the licensing authority followed by an appeal in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Arms Act.
11. Thus, it is evident that the verdict in Kailash Nath's case was unanimous and the law laid down in Chhanga Prasad Sahu's case was supplemented by a further observation that "after taking the provisional action of immediate revocation of the licence the licensing authority must issue notice to the licence holder giving him an opportunity to file objections against the preliminary order and after hearing him proceed to pass the final order which may either affirm or revoke the provisional order.
12. However, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8374 of 1992 (Rana Pratap Singh v. State Refugee) decided on March 4, 1992 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju doubted the correctness of the observations of this Court in Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. State of U.P. (supra) and Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. (supra) by observing that the binding opinions of the Full Bench in both the cases were wrong. The Hon'ble single Judge in Rana Pratap Singh (supra) relying upon Balram Singh v. State of U.P. 1988 A.W.C. 1481 : (1989 All LJ 23) opined that if there was requirement of immediate action the authorities can suspend the Arms Licence pending enquiry. Hence the object of the proceedings will not be frustrated if hearing prior to cancellation is given. In Balram Singh's case (supra) the Full Bench observed that a licence could be suspended during proceeding for its suspension or revocation.
The observations made by the Hon'ble single Judge came up for consideration before a Full Bench consisting of five Hon'ble Judges in Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. 1995 (1) All CJ 200. In paragraph 23 of the report the Full Bench observed :
Seen in the light of what has been discussed it must inevitably follow that the ratio of the two Full Bench decisions, namely, C. P. Sahu and Kailash Nath's cases (supra), was clearly binding upon the learned single Judge and it was thus incumbent upon him to follow it. No occasion for its reconsideration arose.
13. Regarding the Full Bench decision of this Court in Balram Singh's case (supra) which was cited by Hon'ble Markandey Katju, J., the Full Bench in Rana Pratap Singh's case (supra) held that the extent to which it ran counter to the decisions of the Full Bench in C. P. Sahu and Kailash Nath's cases, it did not lay down correct law and consequently it stood overruled. The Full Bench also considered the decision of Hon'ble Markandey Katju, J., made in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. The District Magistrate, Almore 1993 All CJ 394 : (1993 All LJ 942) wherein the Hon'ble learned single Judge held that the right to carry non-prohibited fire-arms was part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as he said the word 'life' in Article 21 has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be a life of dignity. The Hon'ble learned single Judge also held that if no order is passed on an application for Arms Licence within three months from the date thereof, it shall, be deemed to have been granted and that right to carry a non-prohibited weapon was a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In Rana Pratap Singh (supra) the Full Bench was of the view that it was contrary to the binding decisions of this Court and observed that judicial discipline and propriety must combine to curb any tendency on the part of any Judge to brush aside any binding judicial precedent, which may not appeal to him, under the purported cover of the 'per incuriam' label. The Full Bench observed :
It will thus be seen that branding the observation in Kailash Nath's case (supra) with regard to the right to carry fire-arms and it not coming under Article 21 of the Constitution, as being merely per incuriam was not founded upon any law or precedent and was, therefore, wholly unwarranted, rather it constitutes a striking instance of the manner in which the per incuriam rule never can or should be applied. It follows, therefore, that the right to carry fire-arms does not come within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution. We are thus, again constrained to hold that both Ganesh Chandra Bhatt's case as also Devendra Pratap Singh's case do not lay down correct law and are consequently hereby overruled.
14. In view of the Full Bench decisions of this Court the reference of which has been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs which are binding upon this Court, this Court cannot delve into the question that no order suspending the Arms Licence can be passed for the period pending enquiry inasmuch as the Full Bench in Kailash Nath's case (supra) and Rana Pratap Singh's case (supra) has clearly laid down the law that the Arms Licence can be cancelled/revoked even without giving an opportunity to show cause but a post decisional hearing must be provided. The words "for such period as it thinks fit" do not mean that only for a specific period an Arms Licence can be suspended. Section 17(3) of the Arms Act does not provide that the licensing authority may suspend the licence for a specific period only, hence it cannot be said that for a non-specific period or indefinite period licence cannot be suspended or revoked. What is incumbent upon the District Magistrate is that after suspension/revocation of the Arms licence, the licensing authority must give an opportunity to the licensee to show cause against such suspension or revocation. It seems that the attention of the Hon'ble single Judges who decided the cases of Abdul Aziz v. Commissioner, Faizabad Division (supra) and Vinod Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. (supra) were not drawn towards the earlier decisions of the Full Benches of this Court in Chhanga Prasad Sahu and Kailash Nath (supra). The Full Bench in Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. (supra) in paragraph 32 of the report clearly indicated that as regards suspension of an Arms Licence by the licensing authority during the enquiry, this, it may be clarified, may be done only in the manner as explained in the judgment in Chhanga Prasad Sahu's case (supra) and not without application of mind and recording of reasons by the licensing authority with such reasons and circumstances being in consonance with the provisions of the Arms Act. In Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. State (supra) the Full Bench clearly laid down the law that in a case where it is proceeding to enquire into the existence of the facts justifying making of an order for revocation/suspension of an Arms Licence, it is open to suspend the licence pending such enquiry and before it has formed an opinion with regard to existence of such facts. The Full Bench further in paragraph 21 of the report observed :
It is thus evident before a power can be implied as an incidental power the Court has to be satisfied that existence of such power is absolutely essential for the discharge of the power conferred and not merely that it is convenient for its exercise. In our, opinion it can neither be said that the power to suspend an arms licence, pending an enquiry of the nature that licensing authority may like to make before ordering revocation/suspension of the arms licence, is absolutely necessary nor can it be said that the power to revoke/suspend a licence in the circumstances mentioned in Section 17 of the Act, cannot be exercised unless a power to suspend the licence pending enquiry is also conceded to the licensing authority.
15. Thus, it is evident that while suspending an Arms Licence by the licensing authority during the enquiry it should be done after application of mind and recording of reasons by the licensing authority which are in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Act but if the order suffers from non-application of mind and without recording reasons then the Court can certainly intervene.
16. In view of the above the contention of the petitioner that the notices are vitiated for the reasons that no specific period for suspending the licence has been indicated is totally misconceived.
17. There exist sufficient material to indicate that there was an apprehension of breach of peace and tranquillity, if the arms were allowed to be kept by the petitioners and hence in public interest it would not be proper to allow the petitioners to keep the arms.
18. After considering the report of the police etc. the District Magistrate agreeing with the same suspended the licence under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act and directed them to surrender the Arms to the police and issued show-cause notices to explain as to why their licences be not revoked. As before suspending the licence, only subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate was required to arrive at, no prior enquiry or opportunity was necessary before the suspension of the licence. The petitioners shall be provided a post decisional hearing, where they would be given an opportunity to show cause that the notices could be withdrawn and the licences be restored to them. As they would be provided with such an opportunity, they cannot maintain the writ petitions, as they have not as yet exhausted the alternative remedy available to them before the District Magistrate, before whom the enquiry is still pending and after providing an opportunity to the petitioners he may pass appropriate orders. Besides the above, the petitioners have another remedy to file an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, if the District Magistrate would pass an order suspending or revoking the licence. The petitioners, short circuiting the process of law, have filed the present writ petitions without exhausting the alternative remedies available to them. Hence I am not inclined to interfere into the matter.
19. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made by this Court in these writ petitions shall not be read against the petitioners and the District Magistrate as well as the Divisional Commissioner will pass orders strictly in accordance with law.