Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. The petitioner has come up before this Court for issuance of an appropriate writ or order quashing an order passed by the district Magistrate, Munger (Respondent no.1), as contained in Memo No.6155 dated 15th October, 1982. appending its copy as Annexure-3 to the writ application, issuing notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why his gun licence No 44 of 1981 be not cancelled under Sec.17 (3) of the Arms Act, after suspending his gun licence and directing him to deposit his gun as well the said licence in the Kotwali Police Station within two days of the receipt of the said order. 2. The protrial of the relevant facts lie in a very short compass. 3. It has been asserted by the petitioner to the effect that before suspending his gun, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to show cause and thus there has been utter violation of the principles of natural justice and that the allegations mentioned in the notice are tor collectoral purpose and oblique motive, besides in the investigation by the police were found to be bar from truth. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents refusing the said assertions. 5. Mr Radha Mohan Prasad submits that from perusal of the impugned order (Annexure-3), it is clear that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before suspending his gun licence and thus there has been a violation of principle of natural justice as held in Nripendra N arayan Roy V/s. The State of Bihar and other, 1974 PLJR 296. and thus the said order is liable to be quashed. 6. In 1974 PLJR 296 (supra) it was held as follows : even an order of revocation or suspension on any ground would be bad if the licensee is not afforded an opportunity of being heard in the matter before the suspension or revocation of his licence. " 7. and thus the said order is liable to be quashed. 6. In 1974 PLJR 296 (supra) it was held as follows : even an order of revocation or suspension on any ground would be bad if the licensee is not afforded an opportunity of being heard in the matter before the suspension or revocation of his licence. " 7. In the decisions of Gujarat, Orissa, Kerala and Punjab and Haryana high Courts reported in AIR 1969 Gujarat 349, AIR 1970 Orissa 110, AIR 1971 Kerala 162 and AIR 1972 Punjab and Haryana 122, it has been held that an opportunity of hearing must be given while passing an order under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act and that as per our Full Bench quoted below legislature has made no distinction between suspension and revocation. 8. In Kapildeo Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and others, AIR 1987 Patna 122, 1987 BLJ 536 (FB) a Full Bench of our High Court observed thus : ". . . . . . it is not pendency of any and every criminal case which would inflexibility warrant the suspension or revocation of a licence validity granted. A criminal case may range from a paltry traffic offence to the most horrendous capital crime. Whilst the pendency of the former may hardly provide an adequate basis under Section 17 (3), in the case of the latter after notice and hearing of the explanation such action may well become necessary. " ". . . . . . It has to be kept in mind that the prescribed statutory conditions for suspension and revocation of a licence are identical. The provisions of Clauses (a), (b), (c)and (d) of sub-section (3) are with absolute uniformity applicable to the grounds for suspension as well as for revocation of a licence. " (Emphasis added), 9 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the aforementioned propositions of law. 10. In fairness to Mr. Radha Mohan Prasad, I must stated that he also tried to attack the impugned order on the ground of mala fide but later on confined his argument to the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. 11. 10. In fairness to Mr. Radha Mohan Prasad, I must stated that he also tried to attack the impugned order on the ground of mala fide but later on confined his argument to the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. 11. The law as laid down by the Division Bench and the Full Bench decision of this Court referred to above is binding on me and thus tor the reasons aforementioned, I am of the view that only the portion of the impugned order suspending the gun licence of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-3 is bad in law and that part of the order is quashed leaving the authority to proceed io accordance with law. No mandamus need issue as the petitioner can retain his gun as the suspension order was already stayed by this Court. 12. Let a writ in the nature of certiorari issue accordingly. The Rule is made absolute but in the peculiar circumstances without cost. Writ petition allowed.