ORDER H.G. Mishra, J 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction for quashing order dated 9th July, 1973 passed by the District Magistrate, Morena (vide annexure A) revoking the licence of the petitioner under section 17 (9) of the Indian Arms Act. 1959. 2. The petitioner has submitted this petition on the allegations that at the relevant time, he held licence in respect of Mouzer Gun issued by the District Magistrate, Morena (Non-Applicant No.2). This licence has been revoked by the order dated 9th July, 1973 passed by the District Magistrate, Morena (vide Annexure A), purporting to act under section 17 (9) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (No.54 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as 'the New Act). This order is to the following effect: In exercise of the powers vested by the Government of Madhya Pradesh by Home (Police) Department, Bhopal vide Demi Official letter No.2473/2680/2/8(1) dated 6th June 1972 issued in pursuance of Government of India. (Home Ministry) Order No. GSR 1309 dated 1st October. 1962, read with sub-section (9) of section 17 of the New Act, I, Ajay Shanker District Magistrate. Morena revoke arms licences of the under mentioned arms-holders: No. Name of the holder with address No. of licence 1. Gayaram s/o Bhausingh. 384/70 A.M. Resident of Kirreaych, P.S. Porsa, Pargana Ambah. The contention of the petitioner in this petition is that the power of revocation of licences under section 17 (9) of the new Act could not be exercised for revoking licences of individual holders, but can be exercised only for revoking an or any of the licences granted under the new Act with reference to territory, i.e. either through out India or any part thereof. As such, the impugned order is ultravires and deserves to be quashed. 3. On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that the impugned order is intra vires. As such, no case is made out for interference. 4. After having heard the learned counsel Shri A. B. Mishra on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Swami Saran, learned Government Advocate for the respondents we are of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. As such, no case is made out for interference. 4. After having heard the learned counsel Shri A. B. Mishra on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Swami Saran, learned Government Advocate for the respondents we are of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. The Arms Act, 1959 has been enacted to repeal and replace the Indian Arms Act (XI of 1878) hereinafter referred to as the 'old Act'. So far as the powers of suspending or cancelling of the licences go, they were contained in section 18 of the old Act, which runs as under:- "18. Cancelling and suspension of licence.-Any licence may 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 by any Magistrate of a District or Commissioner of Police in a Presidency-town, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the holder of such licence may be, when, for reasons to be recorded in writing such officer authority, Magistrate or Commissioner deems it necessary for the security of public peace to cancel or suspend such licence; or (b) By any Judge or Magistrate before whom the holder of such licence is convicted of an offence against this Act, or against the Rules made under this Act; and The Central Government may by a notification in the Official Gazette cancel or suspend all or any licences throughout the State of India or any part thereof." (Division in parts by us) An analogous provision in the new Act regulating powers of variation, suspension and revocation of licences is contained in section 17. It runs as under:- 17. "Variation, suspension and revocation of licences - (1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose, require the licence-holder by notice in writing to deliver up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice. (2) The licensing authority may on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed. (2) The licensing authority may on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed. (3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence - (a) If the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or (b) If the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or (c) If the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for; or (d) If any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or (e) If the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver up the licence. (4) The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof. (5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefore 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. (6) The authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate may by order in writing, suspend or revoke a licence on anyground on which it may be suspended or revoked by the licensing authority; and the foregoing provisions of this section shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the suspension 0 revocation of a licence by such authority. (7) A Court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act, or the Rules made thereunder, may also suspend or revoke the licence. (7) A Court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act, or the Rules made thereunder, may also suspend or revoke the licence. Provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void. (8) An order of suspension or revocation under sub-section (7) may also be made by an appellate Court or by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision. (9) The Central Government may, by order in the Official Gazette suspend or revoke or direct any licensing authority to suspend or revoke all or any licences granted under this Act throughout India or an part thereof. (10) On the suspension or revocation of a licence under this section the holder thereof shall without delay surrender the licence to the authority by whom it has been suspended or revoked or to such other authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of suspension or revocation." The provisions contained in the first part of section 18 of the Old Act with exception of enumeration of grounds are almost similar to the provisions contained in sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 17 of the New Act. The law contained in second part of section 18 of the 0 d Act and sub-section (9) of section 17 of the new Act are similar. Section 43 of the new Act clothes the Central Government with power to delegate any of its powers and functions under sub-section (9) of section 17 thereof. 6. In the instant case, the power of suspension or revocation under section 17 (9) of the New Act has been delegated by the Central Government to the State Government, which has redelegated it to the District Magistrates, as specified in the impugned order: 7. Now, the question is, whether the power of revocation conferred by sub-section (9) of section 17 of the New Act, is exercisable in respect of the licence held by the petitioner, or whether it is exercisable in relation to territory comprising India or any part thereof. Answer to a similar question, which cropped up under section 18 of the Old Act, was given by their Lordships of Patna High Court in case reported in Nageshwor Prasad v. Bihar State AIR 1960 Pat. Answer to a similar question, which cropped up under section 18 of the Old Act, was given by their Lordships of Patna High Court in case reported in Nageshwor Prasad v. Bihar State AIR 1960 Pat. 359 , wherein the law on the point has been laid down thus:- "As a matter of construction we think that the power conferred upon the Central Government by the latter part of section 18 of the Arms Act is a power of disarming all the inhabitants of a particular locality either on the ground of policy or on the ground of emergency or in a condition of insecurity arising in the State. The power of the Central Government cannot, therefore, be applied so as to cancel the licence of any individual in a particular case. The reason is that the power of cancellation of an individual licensee is granted by section 18 subsections (a) and (b) of the Indian Arms Act." After reproducing section 18 their Lordships of the Patna High Court proceeded to observe:- "The power of cancellation or suspension of licence granted to the Central Government by the last part of section 18 must therefore as a matter of construction exclude the case of cancellation and suspensi0n covered by section 18 (a) and section 18 (b) of the Act. Any other interpretation of section would lead to starting results; because the Central Government may without giving reasons cancel or suspend licence of any individual even if there is no threat to the security of public peace. Such an interpretation will nullify the provisions of section 18 (a) and section 18 (b) which provide safeguards to the licence before his licence is cancelled or suspended. We are, therefore of opinion that the power of the Central Government conferred by the latter part of section 18 is confined only to those cases which are not covered by section 18 (a) and section 18 (b)." Similar is the view of Division Bench of Assam High Court in a case reported in Kishorilal v. Dy. Commissioner, Kanrup AIR 1965 Assam 183, wherein the law on the point has been laid down thus: - "Clause (b) of section 18 embodies a disarmament provision for use when on grounds of policy or in an emergency cancellation or suspension of licences is found necessary. Its use in individual cases would completely nullify the effect of Cl. (a). Commissioner, Kanrup AIR 1965 Assam 183, wherein the law on the point has been laid down thus: - "Clause (b) of section 18 embodies a disarmament provision for use when on grounds of policy or in an emergency cancellation or suspension of licences is found necessary. Its use in individual cases would completely nullify the effect of Cl. (a). The two clauses have to be read together. They constitute as a whole they are complementary. They may not be so read that one completely nullifies the other. Clause (b) deals with classes and territories and not with individuals. Where, therefore the powers of the Central Government under section 18 are delegated to the State Government the latter Government cannot cancel the licence" of a particular dealer under Cl. (b). For effective cancellation of his licence" it is necessary to comply with the provisions contained in Cl. (a). Even the State Government is bound to act on ground" specified in Cl. (a) and has to stale that these grounds exist." The logic underlying in the ratio of the aforesaid cases can be extended and usefully employed for constructing section 17 (9) of the New Act. 8. So far as the power of suspension or revocation of a licence held by individuals is concerned, it is conferred by sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 17 of the new Act. Sub-section (3) specifies in clauses (a) to (e) grounds on which suspension or revocation thereof can be ordered. Sub-section (5) enjoins inter-alia recording of reasons for suspension or revocation of licence. The sub-section (9) of section 17 has been enacted with a different object. It embodies disarmament provision. This provision may be used when on grounds of policy or in an emergency cancellation or suspension of licence is necessary. Its use in individual cases would completely nullify the effect of sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 17. Accordii1gly, the two sub-sections viz., (3) and (9) of section 17 have to be read together. They are supplementary to each other. They cannot be so read that one completely nullifies the other. In this view of the matter Clause (9) of section 17 has to be read as a provision dealing with classes and territories and not 'individuals'. Use of the words "all or any licences" in section 17 (9) of the new Act is significant. They cannot be so read that one completely nullifies the other. In this view of the matter Clause (9) of section 17 has to be read as a provision dealing with classes and territories and not 'individuals'. Use of the words "all or any licences" in section 17 (9) of the new Act is significant. M. Swami Saran, learned Government Advocate contended that the words "any licences" occurring therein, though in plural include singular by virtue of section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which reads as under:- "13. Gender and number.-In all (Central) Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context- (1)... (2) Words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa. If read literally, it may appear that a single licence can be cancelled under section 17 (9) of the New Act. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act provides that unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context the words in plural shall include singular and vice versa. The question, then arises is, whether there is anything repugnant in the context. The context in which the words "any licences" have been used in sub-section (9) of section 17 is clear. The power is to cancel or suspend all or any of the licences, throughout India or any part thereof. Accordingly, the power of revocation or suspension so conferred has to be used so as to order revocation or suspension of all or any licences throughout India or any part thereof. The order contemplated by sub-section (9) should operate either in the entire territory of India or some part thereof. As such, any order, which operates as against an individual holding a licence, cannot be construed to fall within the pale of this provision. Necessarily, the order passed under sub-section (9) of section 17 has to have a territorial operation. This power cannot be read to be exercisable for suspension or revocation of a licence of 'anyone person' in any part of the territory of India. This is so because the appropriate authority for that purpose would not be the Central authority or its delegate, but it would be licensing authority or authority to whom the licensing authority is sub-ordinate as envisaged by sub-section (3) or (6) of section 17 of the new Act. This is so because the appropriate authority for that purpose would not be the Central authority or its delegate, but it would be licensing authority or authority to whom the licensing authority is sub-ordinate as envisaged by sub-section (3) or (6) of section 17 of the new Act. Accordingly, it was not necessary for the Central Government to acquire any power by legislation, for suspension or revocation of individual licences. 9. The context affords, and even more conclusively, an answer to the contention raised by the learned Government Advocate. Section 17 (3) provides for suspension or revocation of a licence on grounds specified in Clauses (a) to (e) thereof. Sub-section (5) enjoins on the licensing authority to record in writing reasons for ordering suspension and revocation of a licence. Accordingly, licensing authority has power to cancel licences by virtue of the power conferred on him by sub-section (3) of section 17. The State Government can ca nee I the licence under sub-section (3) as the District Magistrate, is an authority, sub-ordinate to the State Government, but when it want to suspend or revoke individual licences, then the suspension or revocation of licences has to be for one or any of the reasons falling under Clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3) to be specified in the order as enjoined by sub-section (5) thereof. 10. If the power under sub-section (9) of section 17 is to be utilized for suspension or revocation of individual licence, the result would be that the Central Government or its delegate may cancel individual licences without recording any reasons in writing and also for reasons other than those specified in Clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3). The effect would be that the protection given to the licences under sub-section (3) read with subsection (5) is completely taken away. It would be possible for the Central Government or the State Government to utilise the powers under sub-section (9) of section 17 thereof, whenever it finds necessary or convenient to suspend or revoke licence without complying with the requirements of sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 17. Restriction put on the power of suspension or revocation by sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 17 and the corresponding guarantee and protection given thereby to the licences thus would become illusory. Restriction put on the power of suspension or revocation by sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 17 and the corresponding guarantee and protection given thereby to the licences thus would become illusory. It would be possible to suspend or revoke any licence without giving any reasons and for purposes and grounds other than those specified in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3). 11. Legislature could not have intended that the authority conferred on the Central Government may be utilized by the Central Government or its delegate in such a way that the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 17 may be rendered nugatory, redundant and/or meaningless. 12. The object with which the provision is enacted by sub-section (9) of section 17 is to authorise suspension or revocation of all or any licences in whole of India or any part thereof. This power has to be exercised territory wise and the order to fall thereunder must have territorial operation. This is what has been pointed out by the context. The provisions contained in sub-section (9) therefore cannot be construed to authorise revocation or suspension of a single licence. 13. Shortly put, the sub-section (9) of section 17 embodies disarmament provision. It deals with classes and territories and not with individuals. In order to be valid and effective order of suspension or revocation, purporting to have been passed under sub-section (9) of section 17, it must have territorial operation; it may be intended to operate through out India or any part there of. 14. Accordingly, the Impugned order cannot be justified and treated as validly passed under sub-section (9) of section 17. 15. Although the State Government may in a given case suspend or revoke a licence, but while doing so, it is bound to act on grounds specified in sub-section (3) of section 17, and has to state that anyone or mere of those grounds exist. A bare reading of the impugned order would show that the District Magistrate intended to act not under any other power, except that conferred by section 17 (9) of the new Act. 16. The impugned order contains an express reference to section 17 (9) of the new Act. A bare reading of the impugned order would show that the District Magistrate intended to act not under any other power, except that conferred by section 17 (9) of the new Act. 16. The impugned order contains an express reference to section 17 (9) of the new Act. Therefore the non-applicants cannot be permitted to rely on the other power of suspension or revocation conferred on them by sub-section (3) of section 17 in view of the ratio of Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas AIR 1952 SC 16 , which runs as under:- "Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be considered in the light of explanations subsequently given by the Officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." These principles can be usefully applied to the construction of the impugned order. Therefore, the attempt of the learned Government Advocate to justify the impugned order with reference to section 17 (3) of the new Act cannot be of any avail to the non-applicants, became the order is not based on any of the grounds in Clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3) of section 17 of the new Act. Thus, on any view of the matter, the impugned order has to be held to be ultra vires, being unauthorised by law. 17. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is here by allowed the impugned order contained in annexure. A dated 9-7-1973 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ of certiorari the arm if deposited will he returned to the applicant on production of licence in respect of the same no order as to costs, the outsanding amount of security shall be refunded to the petitioner.