Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharampal Ramnarayan Agrawal vs State Of M.P. And Anr. on 13 February, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)MPLJ537
Author: R.S. Garg
Bench: R.S. Garg
ORDER R.S. Garg, J.
1. The brief facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner was holding a revolver, licence bearing No. 456/VIII/P/1983 for a period of one year. The licence was renewable for the same period after its expiry in accordance with section 15(3) of the Indian Arms Act. The petitioner filed an application for renewal of the licence on 16-6-1984. As alleged by the petitioner, without hearing the petitioner the District Magistrate contrary to the provisions of section 15(3) of the act by order dated 13-8-1984 rejected the application without recording reasons for rejection. The said order was impugned in an appeal filed under section 18 of the Indian Arms Act. The said appeal proved futile, therefore, the petitioner filed a representation to the State Government, but as the same was rejected, petitioner has filed this petition.
2. Shri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of the order passed by the competent authority i.e. the District Magistrate would show that the order passed by it, is ex facie, illegal and is contrary to the provisions of section 15(3) of the Act. He also submits that the authorities on which the reliance was placed by the appellate authority are no more good law in view of the pronouncement of the judgment of the Supreme Court and larger bench of this Court. He submits that where the statute provides that the reasons have to be recorded then it is mandatory for the authority to record the reasons. He also submits that the development of the law clearly establishes that a person is entitled to be heard and is also entitled to know about the material which is required to be used against him.
3. On the other hand, Shri Khaskalam, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents, submits that the division bench judgment, reported in 1960 MPLJ 100, Moti Miyan Azim Miyan v. Commissioner Indore Division clearly settles the controversy at rest and if following that judgment the appellate authority and/or the State Government have confirmed the order passed by the Licensing Authority, this Court would not be justified in interfering with the order.
4. Section 15 of the Arms Act, 1959 reads as under:-
Duration and renewal of licence. - (1) A licence under section 3 shall, unless revoked, continue in force for a period of three years from the date on which it is granted:
Provided that such a licence may be granted for a shorter period if the person by whom the licence is required so desires or if the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing considers in any case that the licence should be granted for a shorter period.
(2) A licence under any other provision of Chapter II, shall, unless revoked earlier, continue in force for such period from the date on which it is granted as the licensing authority may in each case determine.
(3) Every licence shall, unless the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise decides in any case, be renewable for the same period for which the licence was originally granted and shall be so renewable from time to time and the provisions of sections 13 and 14 shall apply to the renewal of a licence as they apply to the grant thereof."
Sub-section (3) of section 15 mandates that unless the licensing authority for the reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise decides, the licence shall be renewable. It cannot be disputed that the requirement of recording the reasons is a statutory requirement.
5. In the matter of Samaru Banjare v. State of M. P., 1985 MPLJ 361 = 1985 JLJ 460, the full bench of this Court has considered the meaning of the phrase 'reasons to be recorded'. The full bench has clearly held that requirement of giving reasons in the light of the language has to be considered in two aspects - (1) the statutory requirement, that is the language of the rule itself, and, (2) as a part of the principles of natural justice. As regard the language of the rule for "reasons to be recorded", it is settled law that when satisfaction has to be recorded with reasons thereof, mere recording of satisfaction or conclusion as to the existence of the essential conditions is not enough. The full bench has further observed that principles of natural justice apply in quasi judicial and administrative actions and, thus 'rule of reason' is a part of principles of natural justice. A statutory authority is required to observe this rule in the absence of a provision in the statute in that behalf. The observations made in the matter of Moti Miyan (supra), on which the counsel for the State has placed strong reliance certainly would not hold field in view of the full bench dictum of this Court. The observations of the division bench in the matter of Moti Miyan (supra) that giving of the reasons, in an administrative order is not necessary, would certainly stand over-ruled by the decision of the full bench. The full bench has considered the law in relation to the phrase 'reasons to be recorded' and has clearly observed that when it is a mandate of the statute, the authority must observe it and the principles of natural justice cannot be violated. The full bench relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1962 SC1694, 1967 SC 284, 1963 SC 1430, 1963 SC 1526, 1976 SC 437, 1974 SC 87, 1978 SC 1214 and 1980 SC 1520 and observed "that reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose the mind which is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi judicial. They should reveal rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusion reached. Only in this way opinions or decisions recorded can be shown to be manifestly, just and reasonable." In para 19 of the judgment, full bench has observed as under:-
"The application of 'the rule of reason' as a part of principle of natural justice was apparently slow and halting in the beginning but seems to have become the well established rule by now."
Placing reliance on various decisions, the full bench observed that principles of natural justice are applicable even to the matters which are quasi judicial and administrative. Placing fullest reliance on the full bench judgment, I have no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the District Magistrate is patently illegal as it does not disclose the reasons for rejection of the renewal application. The order dated 11-8-1984 merely states that after considering the application it was decided by the licensing authority, that the licence be not renewed. The grounds on which the authority had formed its opinion are not mentioned in the order, nor the reasons for non- renewal are mentioned in the order. It is expected of the authority that before using the material against the petitioner, he would be given an opportunity to meet the allegations which are made against him. If after hearing the petitioner the authority is still of the opinion that the grant or renewal is not required, then under the mandate of the law it has to record the reasons because unless the reasons are recorded, the licence has to be renewed.
6. The order passed by the appellate authority refers to certain police reports. It is clear from the records that the said material was not supplied to the petitioner but has been used against his interest. The principle of audi alteram partem clearly states that one cannot be condemned without being heard. The material which is sought to be used against a person must be supplied to him unless the law clearly intends that the supply is not necessary, as it is under the public safety acts. The orders passed by the authorities are quashed. The licensing authority is directed to reconsider the matter. If the authority is of the opinion that it is required to use certain material against the petitioner, then such material shall be provided to the petitioner and he shall be given an opportunity to satisfy the authority that the allegations made against him cannot come in his way for grant of or renewal of the licence. The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Licensing Authority with a copy of this order on 26th March, 1997. The Licensing Authority shall consider the matter afresh in accordance with law and the observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs. Security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner, after due verification.