ORDER
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.
1. This writ petition seeks to quash the order of the lst respondent cancelling the petitioner’s gun licence under the provisions of Section 17 of the Arms Act 1959 and the order passed on appeal by the 2nd respondent confirming the said order of the 1st respondent. Copies of these orders are Exts. P-l and P-2. Ext P-l order Rives no reasons at all tot the cancellation of the petitioner’s licence but merely states that Licence No. 437 ERD standing in the name of the petitioner is cancelled and struck off from the register maintained in the office. The appellate order Ext. P-2 proceeds to state that the connected records show that the licence was cancelled by the 1st respondent on the basis of the report of the police that the petitioner was likely to misuse the weapon, if he was permitted to hold the licence. It then proceeded to record:
“The Board finds that the petitioner cannot be allowed to hold a licence for the possession of a weapon from the public safety point of view and that there are no grounds for interference with the orders of the Additional District Magistrate, Kozhikode. The appeal is dismissed ”
The relevant provisions of the Arms Act 1959 are sub-clauses (3) and (5) of S. 17 which may conveniently be extracted. 17. (1) ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... (2) ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... (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 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.
(4) …… …… …… …… …… ……
(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”
2. The only ground on which the cancellation of the licence was sought to be justified was ground (b) of Sub-clause (3) namely that the licensing authority deemed it necessary for the security of the public peace or public safety to revoke the licence. Sub-Clause (5) makes it obligatory on the licensing authority to record in writing the reasons for the cancelling and to furnish to the holder of the licence on demand, a brief statement of reasons unless the licensing authority was of the opinion that it will not be in public interest to furnish such statement. In this case there is nothing in the order Ext. P-l, to show that the cancellation was directed for security of the public peace or for public safety. No counter-affidavit has been sworn to either, by the 1st respondent, alleging this to be the ground or reason which justified the cancellation.
The appellate order Ext. P-2 seems to have justified the cancellation from the public safety point of view. Justification on the said ground was attacked by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. The relevant file was placed before me. It is seen that what was relied on was a report from the Sub-Inspector of Police. Kalikavu stating that the petitioner was accused of murder charge in a criminal case which ended in acquittal in the Sessions Court, giving the petitioner the benefit of the doubt, that his weapon was seized and that the Sub-Inspector of Police and the Superintendent of Police recommended the cancellation of the licence for the weapon in the name of the petitioner.
On a note in connection with these reports being submitted, it is seen that the Additional District Magistrate has endorsed: “cancel”. It is impossible for me to read this order of the 1st respondent as being in any way a sufficient compliance with the requirements of Clause (b) of Sub-clause (3) of Section 17 or with Sub-clause (5) of the said section There is nothing to show that the licensing authority applied its mind to the question as to whether the security of the public peace or public safety required a cancellation of the licence. Nor is there any compliance with Sub-rule (5) as the reasons for the cancellation have not been recorded in writing. This omission can hardly be made good, and cannot, on the files produced before me, be said to have been made good, by the appellate order Ext. P-2. It follows that the orders Exts. P-l and P-2 are liable to be quashed.
3. If the orders are liable to be quashed, it was not contended that the petitioner was not entitled to a return of the weapon, claimed by him in this O.P. In paragraph 8 of his affidavit, the petitioner has alleged that the weapon was deposited by him in the Kalikavu Police Station, after the cancellation of the licence as required by the provisions of the Arms Act. As the cancellation has been found to be unjustified, the petitioner is entitled to a return of the weapon.
4. I allow this O. P. and quash Exts. P-l and P-2 orders and direct the 3rd respondent to return to the petitioner the weapon deposited by him in Kalikavu Police Station. There will be no order as to costs.