Judgment Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. 1. -the petitioner in this writ application has made a prayer to quash an order of the State Government rejecting the application for renewal of the licences under the Arms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act)and cancelling the licences which had been granted to the petitioner, which was communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 24-11-1978 by the under-Secretary to the State Government (respondent No.2 ). A copy of that communication is annexure I to the writ application. 2. According to the petitioner, he is an arms dealer and was holding licences under Forms XI and -XII being licence nos.4/1967 and 6/1975, respectively, issued to him in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. After the expiry of the period for which the licences had been granted, the petitioner made an application for renewal thereof, and that application as already stated above, was rejected by the State Government. According to the petitioner, the said order has been passed against the principle of natural justice because neither any reason has been mentioned in the order nor the petitioner was given any opportunity to show cause. 3. Section 3 of the Act provides that no person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any fire-arm or ammunition unless he holds licence issued in accordance with the Act and Rules made thereunder. Sec.13 contains as to how a licence is to be granted by the licensing authority. Sec.14 vests power in the licensing authority to refuse licence to an applicant. Sub-section (3) of section 14 is as follows :- "where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it furnish statement". Sub-section (3) of section 14 is as follows :- "where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it furnish statement". Sec.15 makes provision regarding the renewal of licence, which is as follows:- " (1) A licence under section 3 shall, unless revoked earlier, continue in force for a period of three years from the date on which it is granted : provided that such alience may be granted for a shorter period if the person by whom the licence is required so desires or if the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing considers in any case that the licence should be granted for a shorter period. (2) A licence under any other provision of Chapter II shall, unless revoked earlier, continue in force for such period from the date on which it is granted as the licensing authority may in each case determine. (3) Every licence shall, unless the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise decides in any case, be renewable for the same period for which the licence was originally granted and shall be so renewable from time to time, and the provisions of section 13 and 14 shall apply to the renewal of a licence as they apply to the grant thereof. In view of sub section (3) of Sec.15, every licence shall be renewable for the same period for which the licence was originally granted and shall be so renewable from time to time "unless the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise decides in any case. " On the basis of this subsection it was submitted that once a licence is granted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it shall be renewable for the same period from time to time unless the licensing authority is of opinion that any particular licence in the facts and circumstance of any particular case should not be renewed ; in other words, if a licensee by his conduct or any disqualification which has come to the notice of the licensing authority, forfeits that right. If it is held that once the licence is granted, the renewal is a matter of course and rejection of the application for renewal is to be made only when the licensing authority is satisfied that the licensee has forfeited the right of renewal, then the principle of natural justice requires that before rejecting the application for renewal the licensee must be told as to how he has forfeited that right. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance has been placed in this connection on a Bench decision of the Allahabad High court in the case of Statt of U. P. through Secretary, Home Deptt , Lucknow and others V/s. Jaswant Singh Sharma, (AIR 1968 All.383) where R. S Pathak, j. (now a Judge of the Supreme Court) speaking on behalf of the Court observed : "the renewal of a licence can be refused only on the ground mentioned in section 14. It is apparent that there is no express requirement in section 14 requiring the licensing authority to afford a hearing to the applicant before, renewal of his licence is refused. The obligation to hear, however, is a necessary concomitant of the power to refuse, if the power is quasi-judicial in nature and must be imported in the exercise of the power. It is now generally recognised that while the duty to act judicially may not always be expressly stated in the statuate, yet there may be considerations embodied in the statute which give rise to that duty. " It was further pointed out in the aforesaid Bench decision that the Act recognises a right in a person to a licence. The grant of the licence is subject to specified conditions obligatory under section U. The refusal of a licence is controlled by an express limitation enumerated in sub-section (1) and subsection (2) of section 14. The renewal of a licence is also governed by the same considerations. It was held that before rejecting the application for renewal of the licence an opportunity should be given to the licenses to be heard. The renewal of a licence is also governed by the same considerations. It was held that before rejecting the application for renewal of the licence an opportunity should be given to the licenses to be heard. 4 Whatever may be said at the stage of renewal or a licence, it is almost settled that even if there is no express provision in the Act for affording a reasonable opportunity to the licensee before cancelling his licence that requirement has to be read in the provisions of the Act, otherwise such cancellation or revocation shall be against the principle of natural justice. In the instant case I have not been able to appreciate as to why in the impugned communication (Annexure I) not only it is stated that the application for renewal of the licences aforesaid has been rejected, but it has been also mentioned that those licences were being cancelled. Learned Government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents tried to explain the reason for mentioning in the order about the cancellation of the licences. But, I am of the view that this amounts to a stigma even if it might have been used in respect of a licence which had spent its force. Learned Government pleader also submitted on the basis of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the petitioner was holding two other licences in Forms XIII and XIV, which were cancelled by the District Magistrate by his order dated 15-1-1976 after giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause to the petitioner, and recommendations had been made even to suspend the two licences,. which are subject-matter of controversy in this application because of the acts and omissions on the part of this petitioner. In paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit it has been further stated that later a proposal was sent to cancel these two licences, and taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts, the application for renewal was rejected. which are subject-matter of controversy in this application because of the acts and omissions on the part of this petitioner. In paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit it has been further stated that later a proposal was sent to cancel these two licences, and taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts, the application for renewal was rejected. In my opinion in view of the aforesaid statements made in the counter-affidavit, it has to be held that the order of rejection of the application for renewal was punitive in nature and merely because the petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause in connection with other two licences cannot be held to be sufficient compliance of the requirements of law for the purpose of rejection of the application for renewal of licence in question and cancellation thereof, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to show cause before the impugned order was passed. 5. Accordingly I allow this writ application and quash the order of the state Government as contained in Annexure 1. I must make it clear that I have expressed no opinion on the question as to whether in every case of refusal of the application for renewal, an opportunity should be given to the applicant or not. The licensing authority shall give notice to the petitioner making him to show cause as to why the application for renewal be not rejected, and, thereafter, pass an order in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. P. S. Sahay, J.-I agree. Application allowed.