Judgment :- 1. The petitioner had been granted a licence under the Arms Act permitting him to hold and possess 25 bore semi auto pistol No. 128455. The said licence was due to expire only on 14-1-1974. On 5-3-1973 the Additional District Magistrate, Kottayam (1st respondent) passed an order revoking the petitioner's licence in purported exercise of the powers of the 1st respondent as licensing authority under S.17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 (Central Act 54 of 1959), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner contends that the said action was taken by the 1st respondent without giving to the petitioner any notice or opportunity to show cause against the proposal for cancellation of the licence and that the grounds stated in the order in support of the said action are also totally incorrect and unfounded. This writ petition has been brought by the petitioner seeking to quash the order of cancellation of his licence-Ext. PI- on the ground that it is one passed in contravention of natural justice and hence illegal and void. 2. The order Ext. P1 reads: "The Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, in his letter read above, has reported thai Sri. P. P. Jose, Pullukattu House, Changanacherry holder of Arms licence No. P 340/ Ktm. for the possession of one 25 Bore Semi Auto Pistol No. 128455, has attempted to murder one E.D. Mathew, Elanjiparambil House, Vattapilly, Changanacherry on 11-10-1972 by his pistol, that crime case No. 299/72 under S.307 IPC. has been registered by the Changanacherry Police against him and that the case is under investigation. It has also been reported by the Superintendent of Police that Sri. P. P. Jose has misused bis pistol, that he is reported to be a short tempered man and that it is not safe to entrust him with a dangerous weapon like a pistol. The Superintendent of Police has therefore recommended the cancellation of the licence. On a perusal of the report and the connected records, I am of the opinion that it is unsafe to allow the licensee to possess a weapon, and that his holding the licence is a threat to public peace. In the circumstances, in exercise of the powers vested in me as licensing authority under S.17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959 (Central Act 54 of 1959) I do hereby revoke licence No. P-340/ Kottayam issued to Sri. In the circumstances, in exercise of the powers vested in me as licensing authority under S.17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959 (Central Act 54 of 1959) I do hereby revoke licence No. P-340/ Kottayam issued to Sri. P. P. Jose, Pullukattu House, Changanacherry for the possession of one .25 Bore Semi Auto Pistol No. 128455. This order will take effect forthwith." The petitioner has alleged that in the crime case No. 299/72 registered by the Changanacherry Police to which reference is made in Ext. P1, the petitioner has been discharged by the Additional Second Class Magistrate, Changanacherry on the ground that there was absolutely no evidence connecting him with the alleged offence. The correctness of this statement is not questioned in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. It is not disputed that before passing the order Ext. P1 the petitioner had not been given any notice or opportunity of making his representations. In In re The State of Madras, AIR. 1957 Madras 692, Rajamannar, C. J. had occasion to consider the question whether the licensing authority while exercising its power for cancellation of a licence under S.17 of the Arms Act is obliged to observe the principles of natural justice by giving a notice and hearing to the licensee. The learned Chief Justice stated the legal position to be as follows: "It is incumbent on the officer purporting to cancel the gun licence to first inform the licensee the grounds on which the cancellation is proposed and also to record in writing the grounds on which the cancellation is eventually made". In an earlier decision of the Madras High Court rendered by Subba Rao, J., as he then was, P. Narasimha Reddy v. District Magistrate, Cuddapah, AIR. 1953 Madras 476 the learned judge held that the right to possess a gun is one of the fundamental rights of a citizen subject, no doubt, to reasonable restrictions which are incorporated in the provisions of the Arms Act and that before a person who has been granted a licence can be deprived of the right to possess the weapon by a revocation of such licence he is entitled to be given a notice and an opportunity of being heard. These two decisions of the Madras High Court have been followed by two learned single judges of our High Court in Damodaran Nair v. District Collector, 1969 KLT. These two decisions of the Madras High Court have been followed by two learned single judges of our High Court in Damodaran Nair v. District Collector, 1969 KLT. 283, decided by Gopalan Nambiyar, J. and Kukila Narayana Naik v. Additional District Magistrate Cannanore, 1971 KLT. 130, decided by Isaac, J. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned judges in these decisions, that the principles of natural justice have to be observed by the licensing authority before a licence granted to a person to possess a gun is revoked in exercise of the power conferred by S.17(3) of the Act. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing in the case relied very strongly on the observations of the Supreme Court in Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. The Collector of Excise, Govt. of Tripura, AIR. 1972 SC. 1863, where an order passed by the Collector of Excise, Agartala withdrawing a licence to vend country liquor in exercise of the power conferred by S.43 of the Bengal Excise Act was under challenge before the Supreme Court. This decision turned entirely on the wording of the said provision (S. 43) which specifically conferred power on the authority who granted the licence to withdraw a licence on the expiration of 15 days' notice in writing of its intention to do so or even forthwith without notice. It is settled law that the legislature is fully competent to lay down by express provision made in that behalf that in exercising any specific power conferred by the statute the authority empowered to discharge the said function need follow only a particular procedure delineated in the Act; in such a case the applicability of the general principles of natural justice will stand automatically excluded. The case before the Supreme Court was one where a special procedure had been indicated in the statute itself and the observations made in such a context cannot be of any assistance in deciding a case like the present one since the Arms Act does not contain any provision indicative of a legislative intention to exclude the applicability of the rules of natural justice. 5. 5. As already mentioned, the right to acquire and have in one's possession a firearm is a valuable right which has become vested in the petitioner by reason of the grant of the licence and he cannot be deprived of the said right except after his being afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposal for the revocation of his licence. It was argued by the learned Government Pleader that the insistence on the observance of any elaborate procedure in conformity with the rule of natural justice may seriously jeopardise the public safety because the licensing authority will be helpless in the matter of prevention of misuse of the weapon by the licensee even in cases where there is prima facie strong reason to think that it is not safe to allow the weapon to be in the possession of the licensee and that imminent action for divesting him of the weapon is called for in the interests of public safety. I see no basis for such an apprehension because, in my view, it is inherently open to the licensing authority to suspend a licence granted under the Act pending enquiry if the circumstances are such that for the preservation of public peace or public safety it is necessary to take such immediate action. It is a well-known exception to the principles of natural justice that the rule of audi alteram partem will stand excluded where immediate action has to be taken in the larger interests of public safety or public peace. 6. In as much as the petitioner was admittedly not given any notice or bearing before the order Ext. P1 was passed it must be held that the said order is illegal and void on the ground of contravention of the principles of natural justice. Ext. P1 will therefore stand quashed. 7. The original petition is allowed as above. The parties will bear their respective costs.