JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner was a member of the Loksabha representing the Muvattupuzha Parliamentary Constituency. He says that he has got properties in Kothamangalam as well as in Karnataka State. 2. He applied for a licence under the Arms Act. He had been issued with a licence for possession of a 22 Bofe Rifile and one 22 Bofe Revolver. The said licence was renewed from year to year. A copy of the licence issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent as per G. O. (Rt.) 6695/90/Home, dated 23rd October 1990 is produced as Ext. P-1. This licence was issued to the petitioner on his application dated 21st August 1990. The area of the validity of the said licence is extended to all over India. 3. The licence issued to the petitioner in respect of the Arms issued to him for various periods and the quantity and description of the ammunition issued to the petitioner for the said period can be seen from Ext. P-2. It is the case of the petitioner that, to his surprise, the. second respondent has issued Ext. P-3 order No. K. Dis. 65314/ 90/M3, dated 10th October 1990, wherein the 2nd respondent had cancelled the licence issued to the petitioner under S.17(d) of the Arms Act. The petitioner challenges the validity of Ext. P-3 order in this proceedings 4. Along with the Original Petition the petitioner filed C. M. P. No. 17346 of 1990 playing for an order of stay of implementation of Ext.B-3 order. This Court as per order dated 31st October 1990 granted an interim stay and the same is even now in force. 5. Even though notice was issued by this Court in the Original Petition and the petitioner for stay as early as on 31st October 1990 and notice was served on the respondent as early as on November 1990, so far the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit in the case. I heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The learned counsel also produced the relevant files before me for my verification in respect of the facts stated in the Original Petition and I have perused the files. 6. The main ground urged by the petitioner in the Original Petition is that, before passing Ext. I heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The learned counsel also produced the relevant files before me for my verification in respect of the facts stated in the Original Petition and I have perused the files. 6. The main ground urged by the petitioner in the Original Petition is that, before passing Ext. P-3 order, the 2nd respondent has not given notice to the petitioner and he was not heard in the matter before cancelling of the licence issued to the petitioner under the Arms Act. It is also the case of the petitioner that there is no condition in the licence issued to him that he should continue to stay in Kothamangalam during the validity of the period of licence issued to him. In the absence of such a condition, it is stated that the order cancelling the licence issued to the petitioner on the ground that he is staying in Mangalore and taking rest therefore some time in the past is not legal or justified for cancelling the licence issued to him. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted a licence for possession of one 22 Bore rifle and one 22 Bore revolver. As can be seen from the endorsement No. K. Dis. 88139/ 89/M3, dated 18th December 1989 of the 2nd respondent the area of the validity of the licence was limited to Ernakulam District and the same was renewed up to 31st December 1992. It appears that the petitioner has filed an application before the Government on 21st August 1990, requesting Government to extent the area of the validity of the Arms licence to all over India. It is pursuant to the said application, Government as per Ext. P-1 order dated 23rd October 1990 extended the licence to all over India inspite of confining the same to Ernakulam District by the District Magistrate, Ernakulam as per his endorsement referred to the above. Thereafter, it is seen that the 2nd respondent has cancelled the same as per Ext. P-3 order dated 10th October 1990 in exercise of the powers conferred on him under S.17(d) of the Arms Act, 1959. 8. Thereafter, it is seen that the 2nd respondent has cancelled the same as per Ext. P-3 order dated 10th October 1990 in exercise of the powers conferred on him under S.17(d) of the Arms Act, 1959. 8. The relevant portions of S.17 of the Arms Act is extracted below: Section 17: Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.- (1) The licencing 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 require the licence-holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time was 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. (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 licencing authority deem 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 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 license has failed to comply with a notice under sub-s.(1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence. Under S.17(3) of the Act, the licensing authority has got the power to suspend the licence for such period as thinks fit or revoke the licence in case he satisfies that the conditions stipulated in the said sub-section is violated. Under sub-s.3(d) of the Act the licensing authority has got the power to revoke the licence if the conditions of the licence has been contravened. Under sub-s.3(d) of the Act the licensing authority has got the power to revoke the licence if the conditions of the licence has been contravened. It is this power vested on the 2nd respondent that had been exercised while issuing Ext- P-3 order. The licence issued to the petitioner had not been produced in the case. 9. What has been stated in Ext. P-3 order is that the petitioner is residing in Mangalore for some time in the past and taking rest in that place. This is based on the report that the 2nd respondent obtained from the Tahasildar, Kothamangalam. It is not clear whether the licence issued to the petitioner was subject to the condition that the. petitioner should live within the jurisdiction of the Kothamangalam Taluk. The petitioner has clearly stated in the Original Petition that there is no such condition in the licence issued to him. In the absence of any such condition in the licence, it cannot be justifiably said that the petitioner has violated the conditions of licence. 10. The files handed over to me by the learned Government Pleader also did not contain the licence issued to the petitioner and the conditions attached to the said licence. The file also does not show that there is such a condition that the petitioner should live within the jurisdiction of the Kothamangalam Taluk or even Ernakulam District. When the 2nd respondent, the licencing authority limited the licence to Ernakulam District as per his endorsement dated 18th December 1989 the petitioner had taken up the matter before the Government and it is thereafter Government issued Ext. P-1 order dated 23rd October 1990, wherein Government have extended the area to all over India. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any condition attached to the licence issued to the petitioner that he should live within Ernakulam District. The ground stated in Ext. P-3 for cancelling licences issued to the petitioner appears to be wrong. 11. At any rate the contentions raised by the petitioner that before issuing Ext. P-3 order no notice was served to the petitioner and he was not given an opportunity to make his representation are perfectly valid and legal. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent before issuing Ext. P-3 order. 11. At any rate the contentions raised by the petitioner that before issuing Ext. P-3 order no notice was served to the petitioner and he was not given an opportunity to make his representation are perfectly valid and legal. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent before issuing Ext. P-3 order. The learned Government Pleader has submitted before me that there is a complaint filed by a person against the petitioner stating that he is threatening her with the revolver. But it is not the basis on which Ext. P-3 order was issued by the 2nd respondent District Collector. Even in respect of the said complaint, no notice was issued to the petitioner and no enquiry also appears to have been conducted by the 2nd respondent and report obtained on the said complaint. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that Ext. P-3 order is issued with any justification. The said order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Under the Arms Act and the rules framed thereunder, before cancelling a licence, the licensee should be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action of suspension or revocation of licence issued to him. According to the petitioner, no such notice was issued to the petitioner or he was given an opportunity before Ext. P-3 order was passed by the 2nd respondent. He has also stated in the Original Petition that the incumbent holding the post of District Collector, Ernakulam had some misunderstanding about the conduct of the petitioner with reference to his transfer from Ernakulam from the post of District Collector and. therefore, the petitioner has stated in the Original Petition that it is at the instance of the former District Collector, Ext. P-3 order was issued by the present District Magistrate who is also Collector of the District. Whatever it be, no notice was issued to the petitioner and he was not heard before the licence was revoked. The ground stated for revocation of the licence cannot be considered as a violation of the conditions of the licence. In the above circumstances, I have no hesitation to find that Ext. P-3 order issued by the 2nd respondent is clearly illegal and pass any violation of the principles of natural justice. Ext. P-3 order is therefore set aside, but setting aside Ext. In the above circumstances, I have no hesitation to find that Ext. P-3 order issued by the 2nd respondent is clearly illegal and pass any violation of the principles of natural justice. Ext. P-3 order is therefore set aside, but setting aside Ext. P-3 order will not stand in the way of the respondent to take appropriate action in case the petitioner has violated any of the conditions of the licence or acted against the provisions of the Arms Act or the rules framed thereunder. Needless to say that, before taking such action the petitioner should be given a notice and personal hearing and only thereafter, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders in the matter. The Original Petition is allowed. But" there will be no order as to costs.