JASPAL SINGH, J. ( 1 ) TWO questions need to be answered. They are:- "1. Whether under Section 17 (3) of the Anns Act there is power to suspend an anus licence pending equiry into its revocation? Whether the notce given to the petitioner under section 17 (3) of the Arms Act is valid?" ( 2 ) FIRST the facts. ( 3 ) ON March 24, 1984 the petitioner was granted arms licence by the Licensing Authority. The same was renewed from time to time and, at present, it stands renewed till February 23, 1993. On July 7, 1991 a case was registered against the petitioner and others under sections 147/148/149/323 of the Penal Code. Admittedly, a cross case bearing F. I. R. No. 202/91 was also registered against the opposite party. On March 27, 1992 the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) Delhi issued an "order cum Show-Cause Notice" suspending the arms licence "with immediate effect" and directing the petitioner to show cause why his arms licence be not cancelled. Since the "order cum Show Cause Notice" referred to above is at the centre storm, I would like to reproduce the same. It runs as follows:- "order CUM SHOW CAUSE NOTICE 1. Whereas, Shri Sheru s/o Shri Suban r/o village Chandan. Holla, P. S Mehrauli, New Delhi is holding an arms licence No. SDMH-020020 for one 12 bore DBBL Gun No. 013141 issued by this office valid upto 23. 2. 1993. 2. And whereas, DCP/south Disti. , New Delhi has intimated that on 7. 7. 91one Shakruddin has reported that when he was working at Anrool Farm, Sh. Fazloo and Saced came and started abusing and beating him. He escaped from there and entered the house of Noor Mohd. ex-Pardhan of vill. Chandan Holla. In the meantime supporters of Fazloo and Saeed were gethered and starting pelting stones and bricks on the house of Ex-pradhan. in this connection FIR No. 203/91 u/s 147/14s/149/323 Indian Penal Code PS Mehrauli has been registered. Shakruddin and others got injuries in the quarrel and all the accused were arrested. DCP/south Disti. has further stated that Shri Sheru, who is also an accused in the said case has a licenced gun and there is likelyhood that he may create some tension by using his licenced gun in the village and as such recommended that his arms licence may he cancelled. 3. DCP/south Disti. has further stated that Shri Sheru, who is also an accused in the said case has a licenced gun and there is likelyhood that he may create some tension by using his licenced gun in the village and as such recommended that his arms licence may he cancelled. 3. And whereas, the above act of Shri Sheru renders him unfit to hold an arms licence under section 17 (3) of Arms Act, 1959 in the interest of public safely and peace. 4. Now, therefore, -1, Kanwaijit Deol, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Licensing, Delhi by virtue of powers conferred upon me under sections 17 (3) of Anns Act, 1959 do hereby suspend his arms licence with immediate effect. He is directed to deposit his weapon alongwith its cartridges, if any in the nearest Police Station under intmation to this office and his arms licence in this office. He is also called upon to show cause as to why his arms licence should not he cancelled for the reasons mentioned above: His reply to show cause notoce should reach, this office within 15 days from the dale of receipt of this notice, failing which, it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in his defence and matter will lie decided exparte on merits of the case. 5. He is also allowed to appear before the undersigned on 20. 4. 93 at 11 A. M. t. o explain his case in person, if he so desires. sd/- (KAMALJIT DEOL) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (LICENSING) DELHI. No. 8160 /dcp/lic. (Arms) dated Delhi, the 27/3/92" ( 4 ) BEFORE proceeding to deal with the arguments advanced, section 17 (3) of the Anns Act rsay be noticed. It says : 17 (3 ). 93 at 11 A. M. t. o explain his case in person, if he so desires. sd/- (KAMALJIT DEOL) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (LICENSING) DELHI. No. 8160 /dcp/lic. (Arms) dated Delhi, the 27/3/92" ( 4 ) BEFORE proceeding to deal with the arguments advanced, section 17 (3) of the Anns Act rsay be noticed. It says : 17 (3 ). The licensing authority may by 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 the 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 lime of applying for it: 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. " ( 5 ) MR. O. N. Vohra Advocate appearing for the petitioner drew our attention to a Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Chhanga Prasad sahu v. State AIR 1986 Allahabad 142 in support of his contention that the Deputy Commissioner (Licensing) could not suspend the licence pending enquiry into its revocation. The judgment docs support him, for il holds that: "having regard to the scheme and purpose of the provisions contained in Sections 17 and 18 of the Act and the nature of lhc enquiry that a licensing authority is to make belore directing revocation/suspension of an arms licence, it has no power to suspend the arms licence pending enquiry into its cancellation suspension. " ( 6 ) THE Full Bench was persuaded to so hold principally on the ground that the power to suspend (he licence pending enquiry into its revocation could not he regarded as inherent/incidental power of the been sing authority us the existence of such power was nol absolutely essential for the discharge of the power conferred. ( 7 ) IT may be noticed that the Full Bench judgment in Chhanga Prasad Sahu which was delivered by a Bench of three judges was Followed On by another Full Bench judgment in Kailash Nath v. State AIR 1985 Allahabad 291. The Bench comprised of five judges. The Court held that although normally or ordinarily before cancelling a licence for fire amis the licence holder must be given an opportunity of being heard but in extraordinary cases like the existence of an emergency where -an obligation to give notice and opportunity to be heard would obstruct the taking of prompt action, the absence of hearing before the action, can be adequately compensated for by a bearing ex post facto. The Court further observed that:- "the licensing authority can also for the furtherance of his immediate remedial action exercise the incidental power of directing the licence holder to surrender his licence until the objections have been decided. " (emphasis supplied) ( 8 ) THE observations extracted above were interpreted by a Division Bench in Awdesh Kumar Misra v. District Magistrate, Kanpur 1988 Allahabad Law Journal 363, as admitting the poswer of suspension pending enquiry under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act. It was further observed : "power of suspension is a necessary concomitant of power of cancellation for effective control and regulation. It was necessary and expedient that the licencing authority should be clothed with power to suspend a licence when it detects or finds it to be in the interest of law and order. Otherwise, a licence-holder can commit breach of. the terms and conditions of his licence with impunity, without any check or control. What appeal (sic) to us to be flowing from Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act the power of suspension is a necessary adjunct to the power to grant a licence. Sub-section (3) of Section 17 when it empowers the licencing authority may, by order in writing, suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit. What appeal (sic) to us to be flowing from Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act the power of suspension is a necessary adjunct to the power to grant a licence. Sub-section (3) of Section 17 when it empowers the licencing authority may, by order in writing, suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit. It obviously means that it implies within itself the power of suspension pending enquiry. " ( 9 ) THE judgment in Awdesh Kumar Misra s case was Followed On by yet another Full Bench judgment in Balram Singh v. State 1989 All L. J. 23 wherein, while holding that the power to suspend a licence is inherent in the power to cancel il, it was observed: "we have not a minute s hesitation in holding that the effect of a combined reading of sub-section (3) and clause (b) thereof is that whenever a proceeding under sub-section (3) is initiated for suspending or revoking a licence and the licencing authority deems it necessary for security of public peace or for public safely to suspend or revoke the licence , the said authority can in exerise of that power suspend the licence during pendency of the proceedings, without any hindrance from other provisions of the Act. " ( 10 ) THE court observed that in view of the judgment in Kailash Nath s case, the ratio in Sahu s case that there was no power to suspend the licence rendering enquiry "had lost ground" and that the judgment in Awdesh Kumar s case had laid down the correct law. ( 11 ) SECTION 17 (3) gives power to suspend or revoke the licence. suspend means to make to stop for a time: to defer. revoke , on the other hand means to recall: call back: to withdraw. Thus whereas suspension of an amis licence would only mean deferment or a temporary withholding of the licence, finality attaches to the order of revocation as by it the licence is withdrawn or taken back. The power of revocation is thus greater than the power of suspension. And, if it is so, the greater power always includes the less. Even otherwise, I do feel, the power to suspend is incidental to the power of revocation and follows as a matter of course being necessary compliment to the order of revocation without which, in cases of emergency etc. And, if it is so, the greater power always includes the less. Even otherwise, I do feel, the power to suspend is incidental to the power of revocation and follows as a matter of course being necessary compliment to the order of revocation without which, in cases of emergency etc. , the show-cause proceedings against revocation may be rendered ineffective. According to Stroud s judicial dictionary, a thing is said to be incidental to another when it appertains to the principal thing and I have no manner of doubt that the power 40 suspend an arms licence does appertain to the principal thing, that is, the power to revoke. ( 12 ) THE word "or" used in section 17 (3) is not disjunctive. It is used here not so much as to separate two wholly different concepts as to show that they are concepts which are too closely allied and may beused together in one order or simultaneously in the form of two separate orders. For example, the Authority may issue a notice to show-cause why the licence be not revoked and may simultaneously suspend the licence by a separate order. And, if the Authority can resort to it, I see no reason why a combined or composite order cannot be passed. ( 13 ) THIS much on the first question. However, a few more words before I travel on to the next. ( 14 ) JENKINS says that an Advocate is a teacher of sorts and instructs the judge as to what the law is and what are the underlying tacts and circumstances, so that an informed choice can be made. In short, the Advocate must know more and help the decider more. He must also remember thal when the duty to the client-conflicts with the duty to the system, it is the duty to the system which must prevail. I am sure. Mr. Vohra is fully alive to his role and hope that his misplaced reliance on Sahu s case and failure to bring to our notice the other judgments referred to by me above, was only an unintended slip. *see: Jankins Communication in the Courtroom - The lawyer us an educator, 48 AM Banker. L. J. 377 ( 1984) ** See: Churles W. Joiner. University of Sun Francisco Law Review Vol. 24 Fall 1989 *** Ibid. *see: Jankins Communication in the Courtroom - The lawyer us an educator, 48 AM Banker. L. J. 377 ( 1984) ** See: Churles W. Joiner. University of Sun Francisco Law Review Vol. 24 Fall 1989 *** Ibid. ( 15 ) COMING to the second question posed in the introductory part of this order I find absolutely no justification for the order of suspension. The incident on which the action is founded is of 7. 7. 91. The order of suspension is of 27. 3. 92. The long lapse of about 8 months militates against any emergency or urgency or need for immediate remedial action. The order itself speaks of no such urgency or need. ( 16 ) BESIDES, what has been noticed by me above it may be mentioned that an order of the discription must pass three tests. Firstly it must show that the Licensing Authority REFERRED TO its mind to the material placed before it and thereafter deemed it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to initiate action under Section 17 (3) (b) of the Act. What the impugned order does is that it makes mere reference to the police report. The police -report, however, is not a part of the order and there is nothing on the record to show as to whether that report or any part thereof was accepted and made the basis of the order. Anyhow, although the pendency of, a major or capital crime. case may possibly lead to an action under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 on the ground that such a person is "unfit for a licence under this Act" more so where the licensed weapon is used or employed in the alleged crime, the pendency of one single criminal case of the nature as in the present case where admittedly no firearm was used and only simple hurt was allegedly caused cannot attract clause (b) of sub section (3) of Section 17. For that reason also the order Cum Show Cause Notice cannot be sustained. ( 17 ) THE rule is, therefore, made absolute and the order of the Deputy Commissioner (licensing) dated 27. 3. 92. is quashed and a rule in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to forbear giving effect to it. For that reason also the order Cum Show Cause Notice cannot be sustained. ( 17 ) THE rule is, therefore, made absolute and the order of the Deputy Commissioner (licensing) dated 27. 3. 92. is quashed and a rule in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to forbear giving effect to it. ( 18 ) I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my learned brother Jaspal Singh, and although I agree with his conclusions that this writ petition needs to succeed, I do not agree with all that. is said in that erudite judgment, which necessitates my. reasons. The way I see it, the only question involves in this case is whether the order-cum-show cause notice dated 27. 03. 1992 is in accordance with law, and if not, whether the same has to be quashed. ( 19 ) THE law in question being section 17 (3) of the Arms Act. ( 20 ) THE facts which are not disputed, are that 01124. 03. 1984, the petitioner was granted an Arm Licence by the Licensing Authority, and the same was renewed from time to time, and on the basis of the last renewal, same is valid till 23. 02. 1993. ( 21 ) ON 07. 07. 1991, a case was registered against the petitioner and others under sections 147/148/149/323 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, a cross case bearing F. I. R. No. 202 of 1991 was also registered against the opposite party. ( 22 ) ON 27. 03. 1992, the Deputy Commissioner Police (Licensing) issued an order-cum-show cause Notice", suspending the Arm Licence with immediate effect, and directing the petitioner to show cause why the Arm Licence be not cancelled. The question which needs to be decided is whether there can be suspension of Ami Licence with immediate effect. ( 23 ) THE Order-cum-Show Cause Notice" referred to, reads as under:- "order CUM SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Whereas, Shri Sheru s/o Shri Suban r/o village Chandan Holla, P. S Mehrauli, New Delhi is holding an amis licence No. SDMH- 020020 for one. 12 bore DBBL Gun No. 013141 issued by this office valid upto 23. 2. 1993. 2. And whereas, DCP/south Distt. , New Delhi has intimated that on 7. 7. 91 one Shakruddin has reported that when he was working at Anrool Farm, Sh. Fazloo and Saced came and started. abusing and beating him. 12 bore DBBL Gun No. 013141 issued by this office valid upto 23. 2. 1993. 2. And whereas, DCP/south Distt. , New Delhi has intimated that on 7. 7. 91 one Shakruddin has reported that when he was working at Anrool Farm, Sh. Fazloo and Saced came and started. abusing and beating him. He escaped from there and entered the house of Noor Mohd. ex-Pardhan of vill. Chandan Holla. In the meantime supporters of Fazloo and Saeed were gathered and starting pelting stones and bricks on the house of Ex-pradhan. In this connection FIR No. 203/91u/s 147/148/149/323 IPCPS Mehrauli has been registered. Shakruddin and others got injuries in the quarrel and all the accused were arrested. DCP/south Distt. has further stated that Shri Sheru, who is also an accused in the said case has a licenced gun and there is likelihood that he may create some tension by using his licenced gun in the village and as such recommended that his arms licence may be cancelled. 3. And whereas, the above act of Shri Sheru renders him unfit to hold an amis licence under section 17 (3) of Anns Act, 1959 in the interest of public safety and peace. 4. Now, therefore, I, Kanwaljit Deol, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Licensing, Delhi by virtue of powers conferred upon. . me under sections 17 (3) of Anns Act, 1959-do hereby suspend his amis licence with immediate effect. He is directed to deposit his weapon alongwith its cartridges, if any in the nearest Police Station under intimation to this office and his amis licence in this office. He is also called upon to show cause as to why his. amis licence should not be. cancelled for the reasons mentioned above. His reply to show cause notice should reach this office within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which, it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in his defence and illatter will be decided exparte on merits of the case. 5. He is also allowed to appear before the undersigned on 20. 4. 93 at 11 A. M. to explain his case in person, if he. so desires. sd/- (KAMALJIT DEOL) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (LICENSING) DELHI. No. 8160 /dcp/lic. 5. He is also allowed to appear before the undersigned on 20. 4. 93 at 11 A. M. to explain his case in person, if he. so desires. sd/- (KAMALJIT DEOL) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (LICENSING) DELHI. No. 8160 /dcp/lic. (Arms) dated Delhi, the 27/3/92" ( 24 ) THE relevant provisions of the Arms Act in the instant case, which need to be considered, are section 17 (3) of the Anns Act, section 17 (5) of the Anns Act and section 21 of the Anns Act. The said provisions read as under:- "17 (3 ). The licensing authority may by 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 the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or (c)if the licence was obtained by (he 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 it; 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. 17 (5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) or 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. " "21. Deposit of arms, etc. . " "21. Deposit of arms, etc. . oil possession ceasing to he lawful.- (1) Any person having in his possession any arms or ammunition the possession whereof has, in consequence of the expiration of the duration of a licence or of the suspension or revocation of a licence or by the issue of a notifcation under section 4 or by any reason whatever, ceased to he lawful, shall without unnecessary delay deposit the Sime other with the officer in charge of the nearest police station or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, with a licensed dealer or where such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in a unit armoury. Explanation.- In this sub-section "unit armoury" includes an armoury in a ship or establishment of the Indian Navy. (2) Where arms or ammunition have or has been deposited under sub-section (1) the depositor or in the case of his death, his legal representative shall, at any time before the expiry of such period as may be prescribed, be entitled- (a) to receive back anything so deposited on his becoming entitled by virtue of this Act or any other law for the time being in force to have the same in his possession, or (b) to dispose, or authorise the disposal, of anything so deposited by sale or otherwise to any person entitled by virtue of this Act or any other law for the time being in force to have, or not prohibited by this Act or such other law from having, the same in his possession and to receive the proceeds of any such disposal; Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to authorise the return or disposal of anything of which confiscation has been directed under section 32. (3) All things deposited and not received back or disposed of under sub-section (2) within the period therein referred to shall be forfeited to Government by order of the district magistrate: Provided that in the case of suspension of a licence no such forfeiture shall be ordered in respect of a thing covered by the licence during the period of suspension. (4) Belore making an order under sub-section (3) the district magistrate shall, by notice in writing to be served upon the depositor or in the case of his death, upon his legal representative, in the prescribed manner, require him to show cause within thirty days from the service of the notice why the things specified in the notice should not be forfeited. (5) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the depositor, or, as the case may be, his legal representative, the district magistrate shall pass such order as he thinks fit. (6) The Government may at any lime return to the depositor or his legal representative things forfeited to it or the proceeds of disposal there of wholly or in part. " ( 25 ) FROM the above said provisions of the Arms Act, it will he noted that the power to suspend and the power to revoke a licence is a statutory power conferred by. the Arms Act. Power to grant licence is also statutory power conferred by the Anns Act. ( 26 ) IT is also to be noted that there exists a well settled principle of law, to the effect that; when the statute makes provision for exercise of a power, that power can only be exercised in that manner, and all other manner of its exercise are forbidden. This has been said by the English Courts in (1895) I Ch. D. 426, by the Privy Council in AIR 1936 PC 253 and reiterated by our Supreme Court in AIR 1954 SC 322 , AIR 1964 SC 358 , AIR 1069 SC 267 and AIR 1975 SC 915 . ( 27 ) ALL these judgments give effect to a rule of law that when a statutory manner of exercise of any power is provided by the statute, then all other manners of exercise of that power are prohibited. In view of the prohibition of exercise of power in any other manner, it is not permissible to any person who is required to exercise a statutory power to exercise such power in a manner different from the one postulated by the statute. Inview of the aforesaid binding precedents, in my view, it is not possible to hold that power to suspend the licence can be exercised in a manner, not postulated by the Arms Act, 1959. Inview of the aforesaid binding precedents, in my view, it is not possible to hold that power to suspend the licence can be exercised in a manner, not postulated by the Arms Act, 1959. The only permissible power is that which accords with sections 17 (3) and 21 of the Arms Act, 1959, and it can be exercised only in accord therewith. ( 28 ) RULES of natural justice, particularly, rule of audi altrem partem has been held to apply to all proceedings and inquiries of administrative or quasi-judicial nature. It is necessary that betore an adverse order is passed against a party, he should be heard, and in the quasi-judicial proceedings or in administrative inquiries, reasons for the order should be stipulated. It appears to me that section 17 (5) of the Arms Act is indicative of the fact that reasoned order needs to be given when powers under section 17 (3) which includes power of suspension and revocation of arm licence, are to he exercised. ( 29 ) IN support of the contention that the petitioner is entitled to the relief of quashing of the aforesaid notice, Mr. O. N. Vohra, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Full Bench (3 Judges) of the Allahabad High Court in Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. Suite, AIR 1986 Allahabad 142. That judgment concludes by saying. . . . . . . . . . . . . "having regard to the scheme and purpose of the provisions contained in Sections 17 and 18 of the Act and the nature of the enquiry that a licensing authority is to make before directing rcvocalin/ suspension of an arms licence, it has no power to suspend the anus licence pending enquiry into its cuncellation/suspension. " This was Followed On by a five-Judge Bench in Kailash Nath v. Stute, AIR 1985 Allahabad 291. . The five-Judge bench of the Allahabad High Court was called upon to examine the case of Chhanga Prasad. Sahu. In some of the observations made in Chhanga Prasad Sahu s case, the licensing authority suspended the arm licence without notice. " This was Followed On by a five-Judge Bench in Kailash Nath v. Stute, AIR 1985 Allahabad 291. . The five-Judge bench of the Allahabad High Court was called upon to examine the case of Chhanga Prasad. Sahu. In some of the observations made in Chhanga Prasad Sahu s case, the licensing authority suspended the arm licence without notice. ( 30 ) THE majority of the Judges in the Kailash Nath s case observed that, "the law laid down in para 16 in Chhanga Prasad Sahu s case extracted in the earlier part of this judgment must be supplemented by the further observations that after taking the provisional action of immediate revocation of the licence the licensing authority must issue notice to the licence holder giving him an opportunity to file objections against the preliminary order and after hearing him proceed to pass the final order which may either affirm or revoke the provisional order. In other words, it is incumbent upon the licensing authority to refrain from attaching finality to the order of cancellation until the aggrieved petitioner has been heard by such authority and his objections have been adjudicated". The majority of the Judges, therefore, super added to Chhanga Prasad Sahu s case the requirement of ex post facto hearing. ( 31 ) THE majority of the Judges also further observed that, "the licensing authority can also for the furtherance of his immediate remedial action exercise the incidental power of directing the licence holder to surrender his licence until the objections have been decided". ( 32 ) I regret my inability to agree with the proposition laid down by the Full Bench that there is incidental power in the authority to act. In my view, in view of the existence of statutory power of suspension and revocation, question of incidental powers would not arise at all. Similarly in view of section 21 of the Arms Act, there is no question of the. power to require deposit of arms being incidental power. The same is clearly a statutory power, and the power to require deposit of fire arm can only be exercised if circumstances postulated by that section exist and not incidental. ( 33 ) IF it was necessary to give incidental power in cases of emergency, which emergency situation the legislature must have been aware of, provision therefor would have been made, but was not. ( 33 ) IF it was necessary to give incidental power in cases of emergency, which emergency situation the legislature must have been aware of, provision therefor would have been made, but was not. As provision for "emergency" situation was not made, one can assume that the legislature did not wish to confer such powers. Such emergency power, cannot he considered by me, as "incidental power" as such power cannot be conferred on statutory authority by judicial pronouncement, when the statute did not contemplate to give any such power. ( 34 ) THE Allahabad High Court in Balram Singh s case. said that the power to suspend is inherent. For the reasons aforesaid, I am unable to agree that any inherent power of "suspension" can be invoked inasmuch as clear statutory powers are conferred by section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, and only such powers as are conferred by statute can be exercised, and they have to be exercised only in the manner postulated by the statute, and other manners of its exercise (including alleged inherent powers) are forbidden. ( 35 ) IN the fads and circumstances, in agreement with brother Jaspal Singh, I also hold that there is no jurisdiction in the instant case for an order of suspension of the arm licence. The incident on the basis of which the suspension order is founded, is dated 07. 07. 1991, and the order of suspension is passed on 27. 03. 1992. There is an apparent lapse ofcighl months between the two events. A long gap of eight months negate existence of any alleged emergency or urgency, and in any case, the order in question, even if emergency or urgency was relevant, which in my view is not statutorily recognised, the order speaks of no such emergency or urgency. ( 36 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought in the petition, and the order dated 27. 03. 1992 is liable to be and is hereby quashed, and mandamus prayed for by the petitioner is issued, restraining the respondents from giving effect to the order dated 27. 03. 1992, purporting to suspend Ann licence granted to the petitioner.