Judgment :- 1. This writ petition as amended by CMP. No. 3928 of 1968 seeks to quash Exs. P2 and P3 orders. The petitioner is the holder of a gun licence, and, according to him, has been so, for the past 25 years. The current licence is valid upto 3112 1968. By Ex. P1 notice dated 10 91968, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Collector of Calicut on 23 91968, to enquire into the allegations of mis-behaviour and mis-use of the gun made against him. (Ex. P1 is actually only a notice postponing the enquiry originally fixed to 13 91968. The first notice of the proposed enquiry was read out at the hearing by counsel for the petitioner, and it is practically in the same terms). After enquiry, by Ex. P2 order the Collector found that it was not in the interest of public peace and safety to allow the petitioner to keep the gun and ordered under S.17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959, that the gun licence standing in the petitioner's name be revoked. Ex. P3 is a copy of the consequential order, cancelling the petitioner's gun licence. 2. This writ petition was admitted on 27 91968.On CMP. No. 9840 of 1968 filed by the petitioner to suspend the operation of Ex. P2, no interim order was passed; but on 18101968, I directed that the writ petition should be posted for orders on 18-11-1968. On that day, the O. P. was directed to be posted for hearing on 9121968. The writ petition was accordingly heard in part on 13121968, and, at the request of the counsel for the respondent it was adjourned to 19121968, and again, at his request, to tody. The counter-affidavit in the writ petition was filed this day. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised that the impugned order is appealable under S.18 of the Arms Act. Having regard to the fact that the writ petition was admitted as early as 27 91968, and has been pending in this court since then, I am not disposed to entertain this preliminary objection and to stultify the petitioner on the ground that the alternative remedy of appeal has not been exercised. I would accordingly proceed to deal with this petition on its merits. 4. The petitioner's counsel urged two principal contentions in support of this writ petition. I would accordingly proceed to deal with this petition on its merits. 4. The petitioner's counsel urged two principal contentions in support of this writ petition. First that the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the revocation and cancellation of the gun-licence; and secondly that the Collector when he proceeded to revoke the licence by Ex. P2 order on the ground that the interests of public peace and safety demanded the same, had failed to satisfy himself of it, and record his reasons in writing as required by the statutory provisions of the Arras Act. The relevant portion of S.17 of the Arms Act may be extracted. "(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence. (b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; (5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under subsection (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefor and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement". In the impugned order, the Collector records that three persons put in a petition, alleging mis-behaviour and mis-use of the gun by the petitioner and that the matter had been enquired into through the Revenue Divisional Officer, and the Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode, and after enquiry, the latter had recommended the cancellation of the petitioner's gun licence. The Collector noticed that the petitioner admitted some exchange of words with one of the three complainants and also admitted ill-feeling between the petitioner and the complainants. He then proceeded to record: "In the circumstances reported by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode and the Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode and considering the facts revealed at the time of the personal hearing of the facts the Collector is satisfied that it is not in the interest of public peace and safety to allow Sri. Damodaran Nair to keep the gun any further. Under S.17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act and Rules, the gun licence No. 563/KBB standing in the name of Sri. Damodaran Nair to keep the gun any further. Under S.17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act and Rules, the gun licence No. 563/KBB standing in the name of Sri. M. K. Damadaran Nair, Village Officer, Nellikode (now in Panniyankara) Village is therefore hereby revoked." 5. The complaint of denial of reasonable opportunity is based on the averments in Para.2 of the petition. The petitioner has alleged that at the hearing he complained that he was not in a position to make any positive statement unless he was informed of the allegations of the mis-behaviour and mis-use of the gun which were noted as the "subject" of the notice of enquiry issued to him. He has also stressed the fact that as Village Officer who was a subordinate of the Collector, he could not go further than these statements, and he has complained that the 1st respondent did not provide him with a copy of the allegations made by the complainants. These have been traversed in the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent wherein it is alleged that the petitioner did not make any request for furnishing a copy of the complaint-petition, nor for perusing the same and that he was summoned for the enquiry not in his capacity as Village Officer but as the holder of a gun licence. The counter-affidavit has stressed a mistake made by the petitioner about the date of the complaint containing allegations of mis-use of the gun and mis¬behaviour by the petitioner. In spite of this disparity of mistake, and the bifurcation attempted of the petitioner's personality as the holder of a gun licence and a subordinate of the Collector, I feel that the complaint of absence of adequate opportunity is well founded. For the one thing, the notice itself which was issued to him did not disclose the ground on which it was proposed to take action As seen from Ex. P1, the "subject" of the notice was noted as "allegation of mis-behaviour and mis-use of the gun", and the petitioner was merely directed to appear before the Collector on the date stated in the notice. P1, the "subject" of the notice was noted as "allegation of mis-behaviour and mis-use of the gun", and the petitioner was merely directed to appear before the Collector on the date stated in the notice. I am also of the view, that the petitioner as a subordinate of the Collector, could, in the nature of things only place the matter before him in a subdued form and this he did by stating that unless he was informed of the allegations he was not in a position to effectively put in his defence. It has been ruled in more than one decision that the rights to hold a gun on the strength of a licence issued is a fundamental right to hold property. (Vide Narasimha Reddy v. District Magistrate, Cuddapah-AIR.. 1953 Mad. In 476. The State of Madras represented by the Secretary, Home Department, Fort, St. George, Madras AIR. 1957 Mad 692, and Ratial Bhogila Shah v. State of Gujarat-AIR. 1966 Guj. 244.) There are other decisions also which have taken the same view but it is unnecessary to multiply citations. The contentions on behalf of the respondents was not that the affording of an adequate opportunity was not necessary at all, but that in the circumstances, it had been given. This, I am not prepared to find. The second ground of grievance was that the 1st respondent did not apply his mind to the question whether it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for the public safety to revoke the licence. I have already extracted Ex P2 order. It is difficult for me to understand, how, and on what materials the Collector came to the conclusion that it was not in the interest of public peace and safety to allow the petitioner to keep the gun any longer. Beyond noting that exchange of words and ill-feeling between the petitioner and the complainants were admitted at the hearing, the Collector did not find any acts of mis¬behaviour or mis-use of the gun, which appear to have been the foundation of the complaint. It is well known that hard words break no bones, and it is a far cry from exchange of words and illfeeling on the one hand to public peace and and public safety on the other. It is well known that hard words break no bones, and it is a far cry from exchange of words and illfeeling on the one hand to public peace and and public safety on the other. Neither the report of the Superintendent of Police, nor that of the Revenue Divisional Officer, nor even the notes of enquiry by the Collector were made available to me at the hearing in order to satisfy myself as to what had been disclosed against the petitioner, and as to whether the Collector had applied his mind in the light of the disclosure if any, in these reports. 6. Counsel for the respondent even at the adjourned and resumed hearing today, prayed for time for production of the files. I had to refuse this request, as any further adjournment of the case would take the matter beyond the Christmas recess for this court and render this writ petition infructuous, as the petitioner's licence expires on 31-12-1968. I see no merit, nor any bonafides in the request for further time for production of files. On the materials, I am not satisfied that there had been no application of the mind by the Collector, to the question as to whether the security "of the public peace and public safety demanded the cancellation of the licence. 7. I cannot agree with the petitioner's counsel that the Collector has not recorded in writing the reasons for cancellation of the licence as required by S.17(3). That the reasons so recorded are flimsy or have no bearing on the requirements of the statute, is a totally different matter. 8. I allow this O.P. and quash Exs. P2 and P5. orders. There will be no order as to costs. 9. Counsel for the respondents expressed apprehension that this order of mine might stand as a bar against any fresh proceedings that the respondents might be disposed to take against the petitioner. I see no ground for any such apprehension and no need to safeguard the respondents against the same. 10. Issue carbon copies of this order to the counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent. Allowed.