R. R. K. TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30/06/1990 by which fire-arm licence No. 689189, P. S. Khurja Nagar, district Bulandshahar has been cancelled by respondent No. 1 District Magistrate, Bulandshahar. The aforesaid order of respondent No. 1 has been passed on the basis of the order dated 30/04/1990 passed by respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit on 19/07/1990 in Court and this Court on same day granted three weeks time to learned Standing counsel to file a counter affidavit. One weeks time thereafter was granted to the petitioner for filing a rejoinder affidavit. This writ petition was directed to be listed on 30/08/1990 and in the order it was specifically made clear that the writ petition shall be finally disposed of on the date of next listing. However in spite of this clear direction no counter affidavit has been filed. ( 2 ) I have heared learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel and I have persused the order dated 30/06/1990 Annexure-2 to the writ petition and order dated 30/04/1990 passed by respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. After perusal of these two orders, in my opinion, this writ petition can be disposed of on a legal question involved even without there being any counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and in these circumstances as sufficient time has already been granted and no counter affidavit has been filed, the writ petition is being finally diposed of as contemplated in the order dated 19/07/1990. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner assailed order of the District Magistrate on the ground that it has been passed without giving any show cause notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing as required under Section 17 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that the order of the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, passed on 30/04/1990, is also illegal and wituout authority as the petitioner does not suffer from any disqualification either under this Act or any other law for time being in enforce from holding licence or keeping in his possession or carrying any fire-arm ammunition. Learned counsel has further submitted that the order of the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, passed on 30/04/1990, is also illegal and wituout authority as the petitioner does not suffer from any disqualification either under this Act or any other law for time being in enforce from holding licence or keeping in his possession or carrying any fire-arm ammunition. There was also no necessity of cancellation of the licence of petitioner for the security of the public peace or for public safety as there was no such allegations against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that there was no precondition for approval or verification of the State Government in granting the licence. The order of the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut is wholly illegal and without authority. ( 4 ) THE learned standing counsel, on the other hand, has justified the order of the Distrcit Magistrate, Bulandshahar on the ground that it has been passed on the basis of the order dated 30/04/1990, passed by Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut who can legally pass it under sub-section (6) of Section 17 of the Arms Act, hereinafter referred to as the act. The learned Standing Counsei has further stated that under sub- section (6) of Section 17 read with Rule 7 of the Arms Rule, 1962. The respondent No. 2 can pass the order dated 30/04/1990 as District Magistrate, Bulandshahar failed to observe the orders of the Government and the conditions for granting licence mentioned therein. According to the learned Standing Counsel respondent No. 2 has authority in law to cancel the licences by a general order. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the rival contentions of both the learned counsel, in my opinion, as the order of the District Magistrate has been passed only on the basis of the order of Commissioner and the District Magistrate has not himself applied his mind to the desirability of petitioners retaining licences for fire-arm. The sole question for determination in the present writ petition is as to whether the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut has an authority under the provisions of the Act and the Rules to pass a general order cancelling the licence granted by licensing authority under Section 17 (6) of the Act on the ground mentioned in the order dated 30/04/1990. The sole question for determination in the present writ petition is as to whether the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut has an authority under the provisions of the Act and the Rules to pass a general order cancelling the licence granted by licensing authority under Section 17 (6) of the Act on the ground mentioned in the order dated 30/04/1990. ( 6 ) FROM the perusal of the order dated 30/04/1990, it appears that the respondent No. 2 received a letter dated 2/04/1990 from District Magistrate, Bulandshahar wherein it was reported that between January, 198 9/06/1989 the fire-arm licence have been granted by District Magistrate, Bulandshahar. It appears that along with this letter, the licence granted during the aforesaid period were categorised under separate heads and separat lists were forwarded in respect of the categories. By order dated 30/04/1990, the respondent No. 2 has cancelled 99 licences mentioned in list g and 111 licences of list cha and 65 licences of list ka. The respondent No. 2 in his order has mentioned certain breaches on the part of the licensing authority in granting licence and on the basis of the same he has cancelled the licences by a general order without giving any opportunity of hearing to any of the licensees. Thus it is also to be seen whether such order could be passed by respondent No. 2 without hearing and without any show cause notice to the licensees which were likely to be effected by his order. ( 7 ) FOR deciding the first question as to whether the respondent No. 2 has any authority in law to pass a general order cancelling the licence, various provisions contained in Section 17 are to be considered. Section 17 of the Act is being reproduced below:"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, required 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, 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 licencle under sub-section (1) of an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefor 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 any ground 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 or 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: 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 any 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. "there is no dispute that the District Magistrate who is licensing authority is subordinate to the Commissioner, respondent No. 2. Under sub-section (6) of Section 17 of the Act being a superior authority to licensing authority, he could also by an order in writing, suspend or revoke the licence on any ground on which it could be suspended or revoked by the licensing authortiy, sub-section (6) of the Act further provides that the foregoing provisions of this section shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the suspension or revocation of a licence by such authority. Thus the Commissioner being a superior authority has the same power as licensing authority has been conferred in Section 17 of the Act to suspend or revoke the licence but this power is subject to the other provisions contained in sub-sections (1 to 5) of Section 17 of the Act. Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) of sub-section (3) provide grounds on which basis the licence can be suspended or revoked by a licensing authority. The Commissioner being a superior authority can also suspend or revoke the licence on the basis of the grounds contemplated under clauses (a) to (e ). Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) of sub-section (3) provide grounds on which basis the licence can be suspended or revoked by a licensing authority. The Commissioner being a superior authority can also suspend or revoke the licence on the basis of the grounds contemplated under clauses (a) to (e ). A perusal of the grounds mentioned in clause (a) to (e) of sub-section (3) it is clear that the grounds are such which are to be determined objectively and the licensing authority or a superior authority has to satisfy itself before passing the order that such grounds exist. The existence of the said grounds cannot be assumed as the requirement of law is to record satisfaction in respect of the ground on which the order of revocation or suspension can be passed. The power contemplated under sub-section (3) cannot be said to be exercisable as a general power. A particular ground has to be tested and determined and the authority has to record satisfaction in respect thereof for cancelling each licence. From perusal of sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) it is clear that the licensing authority has not been given power to revoke or suspend licence by general order. The same power can be exercised by superior authority and in my opinion, the superior authority will also not have the power to cancel the licences by a general order. From perusal of sub-section (9) of Section 17 of the Act this position is further made clear that the legislature has conferred power on Central Government only to suspend or revoke the licence granted under this Act throughout India or any part thereof by a general order which is to be notified in the official Gazette. The Central Government by such order directs the licensing Authority to suspend or revoke the order of any license granted under this Act. The learned Standing Counsel has not been able to produce any notificaation issued by the Central Government published in the official Gazette by which the power contemplated under sub-section (9) may have been delegated to respondent No. 2 under the provisions of Section 43 of the Act, nor the respondent No. 2 has mentioned delegation of such power by Central Government in his favour for passing the impugned order. From the discussions made above, it is clear that under sub-section (6), of Section 17 of the Act Commissioner has no authority to suspend or revoke the licences by a general order and thus the direction given to the respondent No. 1 by his order dated 30/04/1990 to revoke the licence is wholly without authority. ( 8 ) COMING to the next question as to whether the order dated 30/04/1990 can be passed without affording any opportunity of hearing or explanation to the licensees who are likely to be affected by the order of Commissioner, in my opinion, affording of opportunity of hearing was essential. The suspension or revocation of licence entails serious civil consequences and deprives a person of his valuable right to possess the fire-arm under the licence and this right cannot be taken away without observing the principles of natural justice. The licensing authortiy as well as, the authority, to which it is subordinate, are under legal obligation to afford opportunity of hearing or explanation before taking away such valuable right. The order passed by respondent No. 2 is illegal and arbitrary for this reason also that the licensees who were likely to be affected by order dated 30/04/1990, have not been given any opportunity to defend rights. The order cannot be sustained for this reason also. ( 9 ) IT will not be out of place to discuss the reasons mentioned by respondent No. 2 in his order for passing the order dated 30/04/1990. The first reason given is that the Central Government and State Government by orders directed District Magistrate to grant licence for the area of the districts of which they were District Magistrates except in respect of some special cases and for such special cases the approval of the State Government was to be obtained. The licence granted to the petitioner Sri Rajeshwar Dayal Sharma has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. From column (9) of this licence it is clear that it was granted for the district Bulandshshar only, therefore in respect of the licence of the petitioner there was no violation of any of the order of the Central Government or State Government. From column (9) of this licence it is clear that it was granted for the district Bulandshshar only, therefore in respect of the licence of the petitioner there was no violation of any of the order of the Central Government or State Government. The respondent No. 2 has referred to Rule 7 of Arms Rule, 1962 for saying that the orders of the State Government having binding legal effect and the licensing authority cannot violate the same and if the licence is granted in violation of the orders it shall be invalid. Rule 7 reads as under:"7 Direction and control over licensing Authorities:- All licensing authorities shall work under the direction and control of their respective appellate authorities. "rule 5 provide for the appellate authorities and (d) (2) of the table given thereunder mentions the appellate authority vis-a-vis the authority which passes the order under different provisions of the Act. From Rule 5 it is clear that in respect of orders of District Magistrate (in State of Uttar Pradesh) the Commissioner of the Division is appellate authority. The respondent No. 2 in his order has mentioned only about the order issued by the Central Government and the State Government. Under Rule 5 they are not appellate authority since the licensing authority is District Magistrate. For this reason also the alleged order can, at the most, be termed as orders providing guidelines administratively and cannot have any statutory force so as to curtail the power of the licensing authority under the Act to grant licence. The licence granted cannot be legally held to be invalid for being in breach of alleged orders. In any view of the matter it was required to be determiend in each individual case as to whether the alleged breach, actually affected the power of the licensing authority in granting licence. This can also nor be determined without examining the facts of each case and without hearing the licensee. The order as passed by respondent No. 2 thus suffers from manifest illegality. ( 10 ) THE second reason given by the respondent No. 2 in his order is that the licence granted by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar are invalid as they violate clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act. The order as passed by respondent No. 2 thus suffers from manifest illegality. ( 10 ) THE second reason given by the respondent No. 2 in his order is that the licence granted by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar are invalid as they violate clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act. In my opinion, the petitioner did not suffer from any prohibition under the Act or any other law for the time being in force for holding the licence for fire-arm. There was no such material either before the respondent No. l or before respondent No. 2 indicating such prohibition of law against the petitioner. There was also no material on which basis it could be said that the licensing authority or the Commissioner could deem it necessary to revoke the licence for the security of the public peace or for public safety. Thus Cls. (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act were also not available to respondent No. 9 for passing order dated 30/04/1990. ( 11 ) THE provisions contained in Chapter III relating to licence confer an absolute power on the licensing authority to grant licence. Under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act he is required to obtain report of the officer in charge of the nearest police station on the application made for obtaining licence but the proviso to sub-section (2a) further makes it clear that the licensing authority may grant licence without waiting for such report. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that the authority of the licensing authority to grant licence is plain though it is desirable before granting licence to obtain the report of the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station to ascertain antecedents of the applicant for the licence. Thus even in absence of the police report if the licence is granted it shall not be invalid, it shall only be an irregularity. There could be no justification for passing a general order for cancelling the large number of licences on this ground. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30/04/1990 passed by Commissioner, Merrut Division, Meerut, respondent No. 2 and the order dated 30/06/1990 passed by District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, respondent No. 1 are hereby quashed. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30/04/1990 passed by Commissioner, Merrut Division, Meerut, respondent No. 2 and the order dated 30/06/1990 passed by District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, respondent No. 1 are hereby quashed. It shall, however, be open to the respondents 1 and 2 to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the licensee. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.