JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P39 and P40 proceedings of the 3 rd respondent. Petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner is a person who is very much interested in participating in target practice, by using revolver and rifle and also a member of the Rifle Club Association. Petitioner is issued with Ext.P7 licence for the possession of a firearm with weapon specification as .022 Bore SBBL rifle. Later petitioner added additional firearms to his parent licence and all such licences are renewed from time to time. It is contended that the petitioner is in possession of three weapons, i.e., .032 Bore revolver, .12 bore DBBL gun and .22 Bore SPBL rifle as evident from Ext.P8 renewed arms licence. Petitioner during Covid-19 pandemic returned back to his native place from his employment in UAE and thereafter he participated in several activities connected with rifle club and shooting target practice. Based on the Government Orders issued for controlling problematic wild boars which destroy agricultural crops and also cause threat to human life, the Divisional Forest Officer constituted an experienced team of experts in using firearms for controlling the problematic wild boars and the petitioner was also selected as one among to such team of professional hunters to shoot the problematic wild boars. The Forest Department has also issued Ext.P20 identity card treating the petitioner as a professional hunter. As per Exts.P21 and P22, petitioner was included as one of the members of the hunting team of wild boars. Likewise, petitioner was issued with Ext.P23 life membership by the Kottayam Rifle Association and Ext P24 membership by the National Rifle Association. Petitioner with an intention to start an armoury shop rented out a building in Pala. While the petitioner’s dealership licence application was under active consideration, the 4 th respondent issued Ext.P34 notice directing the petitioner to surrender the third firearm possessed by the petitioner under the parent licence No.R 594/KTM before the nearby SHO of the Police Station in view of the amendment to Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 which came into force in 2019. On receipt of Ext.P34 notice, petitioner decided to surrender and deposit one of his firearm, i.e., NPB.32 Bore Revolver weapon. On receipt of Ext.P34 notice, petitioner decided to surrender and deposit one of his firearm, i.e., NPB.32 Bore Revolver weapon. Accordingly, he approached the Cochin Armoury, a licensed dealer and deposited the said revolver and as evident from Ext.P36 dated 26.09.2022 the said revolver is seen deposited with the said armoury. Ext.P37, the relevant pages of the register maintained by the Cochin Armoury, also revealed that on 26.09.2022 the third firearm was surrendered. Thereupon, the petitioner sent a copy of Ext.P37 deposit receipt with Ext P38 covering letter to the 3 rd respondent. A copy of the same was submitted to the Pala Police Station also. While so, to the utter shock of the petitioner, he has been issued with Ext.P39 order intimating that the parent arms licence of the petitioner bearing No.R 594/KTM stands cancelled for the reason that the petitioner has not surrendered the third firearm as directed in Ext P34 notice. Consequent to Ext.P39, Ext.P40 letter was issued to the petitioner cancelling the licence. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Petitioner would submit that before issuing Exts.P39 and P40, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. It is also contended that since he has complied with the direction in Ext.P34 by depositing one firearm before the Cochin Armoury, the 3 rd respondent ought not to have cancelled the licence of the petitioner as per Exts.P39 and P40. Petitioner submits that going by the relevant provision of the Arms Act, the petitioner is entitled to surrender the same before an armoury shop and that it is not mandatory that the weapons should be surrendered before the police authorities. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3 rd respondent wherein it is contended that the petitioner has submitted an application for issuance of arms and ammunition dealer licence. While the said application was pending consideration, Ext.R3(a) anonymous complaint was received against the petitioner and it was forwarded to the District Police Chief, Kottayam and the Tahsildar, Meenachil for enquiry. One of the allegations in the said complaint was that the petitioner was holding three weapons under his gun licence and that as per the amended provision, petitioner is entitled to hold only two weapons. One of the allegations in the said complaint was that the petitioner was holding three weapons under his gun licence and that as per the amended provision, petitioner is entitled to hold only two weapons. Thereupon Ext.P34 notice was issued and as there was no response from the side of the petitioner, Exts.P39 and P40 proceedings were issued cancelling the licence issued to the petitioner. After the issuance of Exts.P39 and P40, a news with photograph came in Malayala Manorama Daily with regard to the hunting of wild Boars in Peruvanthanam Panchayat in which the petitioner also figured standing with other shooters holding a weapon. On the basis of the same, it is contended that the petitioner was using the said gun even after Ext.P39 cancellation order was issued. It is also contended that the petitioner has an effective remedy of filing appeal challenging Ext.P39 order as provided in Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 . 5. Petitioner filed a detailed reply contending that the allegation in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has used gun even after issuance of Ext.P39 cancellation order is utter falsehood and submitted that Ext.P41 produced along with the reply affidavit are page Nos.2 and 3 of the register maintained in the office of the Panchayat providing with the hunting particulars of problematic wild boars, which reveals that the firearm used for hunting the wild boar on 10.11.2022 is not the one in the possession of the petitioner. 6. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides. 7. Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 deals with the licence for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition. Prior to the amendment a person could possess or carry at any time three firearms, but after the amendment, it was restricted to two firearms. It is on the basis of the amendment to the Act that Ext.P34 notice was issued to the petitioner to surrender one firearm before the Station House Officer of the nearest police station. Going by the averment in the writ petition, petitioner surrendered the same before the Cochin Armoury, a licensed armoury shop, but the same was not before the Station House Officer of the nearest police station as directed in Ext.P34. Going by the averment in the writ petition, petitioner surrendered the same before the Cochin Armoury, a licensed armoury shop, but the same was not before the Station House Officer of the nearest police station as directed in Ext.P34. Petitioner relying on Section 21 of the Arms Act, which deals with the deposit of arms, etc., contends that he is entitled to surrender the firearm before an armoury shop or before the Station House Officer of the nearest police station. Section 21 (1) of the Act reads as follows: “(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 notification under section 4 or by any reason whatever, ceased to be lawful, shall without unnecessary delay deposit the same either 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. ” (underline supplied) Section 21 empowers the petitioner to surrender the arms, etc. either before the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, with a licensed dealer. The deposit with a licensed dealer is subject to such conditions as may be prescribed and Rule 47 of the Arms Rules, 2016 deals with such conditions. Going by Rule 47, the deposit could be made with an arms dealer only if he holds a licence in Form No.VIII. The deposit with a licensed dealer is subject to such conditions as may be prescribed and Rule 47 of the Arms Rules, 2016 deals with such conditions. Going by Rule 47, the deposit could be made with an arms dealer only if he holds a licence in Form No.VIII. Rule 47(1) of the Arms Rules, 2016 reads as follows: “(1) When a licensing authority decides to suspend or revoke a license or to refuse to renew it, he shall, communicate his decision in writing to the licensee, requiring him to deposit under section 21, within such time as may be specified in the order suspending, revoking or refusing to renew the license, the arms or ammunition covered by the license, either with the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or with a dealer holding a license in Form VIII, or, in case he is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in the unit armoury: Provided that in case of death of a licensee, the arms or ammunition shall be deposited by the legal representative with the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or with a dealer holding a license in Form VIII, within a period of three months of the death of the licensee.” (underline supplied) 8. Petitioner would contend that Cochin Armoury where the weapon was deposited is a dealer holding a licence in Form No.VIII and therefore the surrender of the firearm before Cochin Armoury, a licensed dealer, is strictly in consonance with Section 21 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Rule 47 of the Arms Rules, 2016. The specific case of the petitioner is that the deposit of the firearm before the Cochin Armoury was duly communicated by the Cochin Armoury as well as the petitioner. It is alleged that there was no deposit or any communication submitted by the petitioner regarding the deposit pursuant to Ext.P34 notice. Petitioner would contend that going by Rule 49 of the Arms Rules, 2016, it is mandatory for the dealer, where the weapon is deposited, to forward to the District Magistrate the entries made in the registers relating to the deposit of the arms. Petitioner would contend that going by Rule 49 of the Arms Rules, 2016, it is mandatory for the dealer, where the weapon is deposited, to forward to the District Magistrate the entries made in the registers relating to the deposit of the arms. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the position of law as explained above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to surrender the firearm either before the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, with a licensed dealer. 9. The only reason stated in Ext.P39 for cancelling the licence of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not surrendered one of his arms as directed in Ext.P34. Admittedly, before issuing Ext.P39 order whereby the licence was cancelled, no notice was issued or an opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner. Though the learned Government Pleader would contend that no notice is contemplated as per Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 before revocation of licence, it is settled position of law that even if the statute does not provide for a hearing before a decision is taken, the principles of natural justice demand that the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity of being heard before a decision is taken for cancellation of his licence. If the petitioner was issued with a notice, he could have produced the details of the surrender of the arm, etc. to the satisfaction of the 3 rd respondent. As I have already found that the petitioner is entitled either to surrender the arm before the Station House Officer of the nearest police station or to an armoury which is having the requisite licence, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 3 rd respondent. Accordingly, Exts.P39 and P40 are set aside, with a consequential direction to the 3 rd respondent to reconsider the matter after issuing notice to the petitioner and affording necessary opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his contentions. A decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.