Judgment M. Prasad, S. Roy, JJ. 1. This writ application by the petitioner. Rana Ram Eqbal Singh, is for quashing annexures 2 and 3 by which his gun licence no.5954 of 1978 has been suspended 2. It appears that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jagannathpur Police station, Ranchi had reported on 23rd October, 1979 as follows : "i have the honour to submit that on 29th September, 1979 at 23 hours, Rana Sangram Singh along with 15 - 20 persons armed with gun and deadly weapon attacked the quarter of Sri P. D. Singh in a bid to murder him. By chance, P. D. Singh escaped through back door. Assailants fired at Srimati Anjira Devi wife of Sri P. D. Singh who sustained pillet injuries. To save their life, wife of P. D. Singh, her daughter and son went in the quarter of S. N. Singh, Rana Sangram Singh and other accused persons also attacked the quarter of S. N. Singh and fired at him who died on the way to Plant Hospital, Dhurwa. " "on the written report of complainant Sri Sidhi Singh, Case No.9, dated 22nd October, 1979 under Sections 147/148/149/302/307/ 380, I. P. C. , and 27 Arms Act was instituted. " "during investigation of the case, it was ascertained that accused, rana Sangram Singh used the gun in the commission of the heinous crime which stands in the name of Rana Ram Eqbal singh son of accused Rana Sangram Singh of Hinoo, Birsa chowk, Ranchi (permanent address village Basantpur, P. S. Mohania, district Rohtas ). " "sri Rana Sangram Singh is a gun licensee and his gun Licence No.5954 of 1978 of Ranchi. I request your honour to kindly pass order for suspension of aforesaid gun licence for contravention of Arms Act as the gun was misused". 3. The aforesaid report of Sub-Inspector of Police was forwarded by the City Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, under his letter No.2350, dated 30th October, 1979 (Annexure I) to the deputy Commissioner, Ranchi with a request to suspened the gun Licence No.5354/78 of the petitioner. 3. The aforesaid report of Sub-Inspector of Police was forwarded by the City Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, under his letter No.2350, dated 30th October, 1979 (Annexure I) to the deputy Commissioner, Ranchi with a request to suspened the gun Licence No.5354/78 of the petitioner. On receipt of the said Letter No.2350, dated 30th October, 1979 of the City Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, with its aforesaid enclosure, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, passed the following order, dated 5th November, 1979 : "perused Letter No.2350, dated 30th October, 1979 of City S. P. , ranchi, requesting for suspension of gun Licence No.5954/78 (Ranchi) of the O. P. Suspend the licence and issue show cause why the licence should not be cancelled. Ask local police to seize the arm. " 4. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal being ranchi Arms appeal No.7 of 1980 under Sec.18 of the arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Act") before the Commissioner, south Chotanagpur Division, ranchi, against the aforesaid order dated 5th november, 1979 passed by the deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, suspending the gun-licence of the petitioner and one of the points taken by the petitioner before the Commissioner was that the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, had suspended the licence without giving any reason for suspending the same as required under sub-section (5)of Sec.17 of the Act. The learned commissioner, however, repelled that contention on the ground that though the Deputy commissioner had not specifically mentioned the reason for suspension in his order dated 5th november, 1979, (Annexure 2), he had referred to the letter No.2350, dated 30th October, 1979 of the City S. P. , ranchi alongwith which had been forwarded the report dated 23rd October, 1979 of the Sub-Inspector of Police which did contain the facts which endangered public safety and which was the basis of the aforesaid order dated 5th novembar, 1979 of the Deputy commissioner. The learned Commissioner, therefore, by his order dated 7th July, 1980 (Annexure 3), in which he quoted the aforesaid report dated 23rd October, 1979 by the Sub-Inspector of police in extenso, dismissed the appeal. 5. The learned Commissioner, therefore, by his order dated 7th July, 1980 (Annexure 3), in which he quoted the aforesaid report dated 23rd October, 1979 by the Sub-Inspector of police in extenso, dismissed the appeal. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ application, and, at the time of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged only that part of the order dated 5th November, 1979 of the Deputy Commissioner, ranchi by which the gun-licence of the petitioner has been suspended, and he did not challenge that part of the said order by which the petitioner has been asked to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled, and in support of his contention that the order suspending the licence of the petitioner is bad in law, he urged the following two points : - (1) The order for suspending of the gun licence of the petitioner is bad as it does not give any reason for suspending it as required under sub-section (5) of Sec.17 of the Act ; (2) The order of suspension of the gun-licence of the petitioner is also bad as it had been passed without giving any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. 6. In support of the first point, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited several decisions of different High Courts. They are Beni Chand V/s. District Magistrate, Banda and another, AIR 1953 all 476 , Haji Mohd. Vakil v. Commissioner of Police and another, AIR 1954 Cal.157, Bagga Singh V/s. Distrct Magistrate, Barnala, AIR 1954 Pepsu 150 ; Ratilal Bhogilal Shah V/s. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1966 Guj.244, Samarendra Nath Roy V/s. R. N, basu, AIR 19 5 Cal.595, Kahirode chandra Pal V/s. District Magistrate, howrah and another, AIR 1956 Cal.96, sadhansu Kanta Achrya V/s. State of bihar and others, AIR 1954 Pat.299 and Mohd. Afaq V/s. The Commissioner of allahabad Division, Allahabad and another, 1975 Cr. LJ 709. These decisions are to the effect that the authority cancelling or suspending the licence must himself record reasons in writing which should appear on the face of the order and mere mentioning in the order that the authority cancelling or suspending the licence was satisfied from the materials contained in the police report that the licence should be cancelled is not enough. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it cannot but be held that the order dated 5th November, 1979 (Annexure 2) passed by the Deputy commissioner, Ranchi, in which he himself had not recorded any reason for suspending the gun licence of the petitioner and had simply written that he had perused Letter No.2350, dated 30th October, 1979 of the City S. P. , Ranchi, fell far short of the requirements of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Act regarding the recording of reasons for suspension. Therefore, the order dated 5th November, 1979 (Annexure 2) of the Deputy Commissioner, ranchi in so far as it relates to the suspension of the gun-licence of the petitioner, must be and is hereby quashed, and, in that view of the matter, it is also not necessary to decide the second point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Since, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner has chal lenged the other part of the said order by which the petitioner has been asked to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled, and since the appellate courts judgment (Annexure 3) of the Commissioner quotes in extenso the aforesaid report dated 23rd October, 1979 of the Sub-Inspector of Police on the basis of which the Deputy Commissioner had passed the order dated 5th November, 1979, the petitioner by now fully knows the facts which had weighed with the Deputy Commissioner to issue the said show-cause notice to him, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, and show cause latest by 18th August, 1980. 8. The writ application is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above with the aforesaid direction to the petitioner. Writ allowed.