JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the District Magistrate dated 22nd Oct., 1980, confirmed in appeal by the Home Commissioner on 3rd May, 1989 wherein the petitioner has prayed that order of suspension of his Arms Licence in respect of revolver bearing Licence No. 14/73 be set aside. 2. The petitioners grievance is that neither the notice was given prior to passing of the order of suspension of the licence nor any period has been specified as to upto what period the licence shall remain suspended. It is further submitted that the order is not a speaking order and, therefore, it should be set aside. 3. Notice of this writ petition was given to the State Government as early as 6th Nov.. 1989. The parties have been served since long but till date no reply has been filed on behalf of the State. Time had thrice been granted to the learned Dy. G. A. and lastly it was observed on 26th July, 1990 that if the reply is not filed the application shall be decided in absence of the reply. 4. The short point involved in the case is as to order dated 22nd Octo., 1988 suffers from the two major defects, mentioned above, one is that it has been passed without notice to the petitioner and secondly, that period of suspension has not been mentioned. 5. I have perused the order suspending the licence of the petitioner along with others as well as the order passed by the Home Commissioner. 6. Under the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter has been passed in pursuance of the power conferred under Sec 17(3)(b) of the Act, which reads as under : "If the Licence Authority deems it necessary for security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence for......" 7. The legislature while enacting the law has used different terminology at different places such as refusal, suspension and revocation, confection and each have been mentioned ;n a different context. Obviously, it is borne out from the order that the learned District Magistrate has passed the order in pursuance of Section 17(3)(b), that is, he has suspended the licence but the order does not show for how much period he has suspended the same. Obviously, it is borne out from the order that the learned District Magistrate has passed the order in pursuance of Section 17(3)(b), that is, he has suspended the licence but the order does not show for how much period he has suspended the same. It is essential for the District Magistrate to have made the order coterminous with some happening i. e. it could be either during an inquiry or during pendency of criminal cases or for a particular period but suspension order passed as such is not the one contemplated by Section 17(3)(b) of the Act. Besides this it is also not borne out from the order that before passing the order the District Magistrate has given any notice to show cause to the petitioner. 8. I need not go on the other points at this stage. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, I set aside the order dated 22nd Nov., 1980 qua the petitioner Shiv Kant and direct that his Arms Licence suspended and got deposited from him shall be restored and the arm shall be returned to him with licence. It is however, made clear that this order will not come in way of the District Magistrate from passing any other order if the same comes within the purview of the provisions of law. He, however, shall follow the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. 10. The petition is allowed as aforesaid.Petition allowed. *******