Vivek Rusia, J. - The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 31.7.2018 passed by Additional Secretary, Home Department, State of M.P., whereby the licence to run the business of sale and repair of arms and weapons has been cancelled.

2. The petitioner was a registered/licence owner of shop in the name and style of M/s. Badshah Arms engaged in repairing and sale of weapons and has necessary licence Form XI. Before passing of impugned order, he was running his business since 19.5.2007 under the licence which used to be renewed from time to time by the competent authority. He has been granted the licence by respondent No.3 which was valid till 31.12.2018.

3. Petitioner was served with show-cause notice dated 28.11.2017 alleging violation of provisions of Arms Act, 1959 and called upon as to why the proceedings of suspension of licence be not initiated. He was given 7 days time to submit the response to the said show-cause notice. Immediately, vide order dated 29.11.2017, the Additional District Magistrate has cancelled three TPL/NOC.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner filed W.P. No.21741/2017 before this Court. By order dated 18.12.2017, this Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file reply to the show-cause notice within a period of two weeks and till then effect of order dated 29.11.2017 was kept in abeyance.

5. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 1.1.2018. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.7.2018, respondent No.1 has cancelled the licence, hence the present writ petition before this Court.

6. After notice, the respondents have filed the return by submitting that an inspection was conducted by respondent No.3 at the shop of the petitioner on 7.11.2017 and during inspection, as many as 10 discrepancies were found and thereafter, inspection report dated 27.11.2017 was submitted. In pursuant to the said report dated 27.11.2017, a show-cause notice dated 28.11.2017 was issued to petitioner. The petitioner submitted the reply and thereafter, respondent No.2 sent a proposal with his comments to respondent No.1 for revocation of licence of the petitioner. The petitioner has not challenged the finding recorded by respondent No.2. On the proposal sent by respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 has cancelled the licence of the petitioner in accordance with Section 17 of the Arms Act. The petitioner is having alternative remedy of appeal u/s. 18 of the Arms Act, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have heard Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Bhakti Vyas, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents/State and perused the material available on record.

8. Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that before passing the order dated 31.7.2018, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing by the licensing authority which is the mandate of Section 17 of the Arms Act. The petitioner is running his business successfully since 19.5.2007 and he did not commit any irregularity and he did not violate any terms and conditions of the licence. He filed the detailed and exhaustive reply which has not been considered and by a non-speaking order, his licence has been cancelled. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment of Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Kailash Nath V/s. State of U.P., (1985) AIR Allahabad 291; judgment of apex Court in the case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao V/s. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, (1959) AIR SC 308; and Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots Association V/s. Director General of Civil Aviation, (2011) 5 SCC 435.

9. Per contra, Ms. Bhakti Vyas, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents/State, argued in support of the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

10. The State Government has raised preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of writ petition for want of alternative remedy. Though Section 18 provides that any person aggrieved by order of licensing authority refusing to grant licence or varying the conditions of a licence, may prefer an appeal against the order of such authority, but as per Proviso to Section 18, no appeal lies against any order made by or under the direction of the Government. In the present case, the impugned order is passed by the State Government, therefore, by virtue of Proviso, the petitioner is not having remedy of appeal u/s. 18 of the Arms Act, hence the objection taken by the respondents is hereby turned down.

11. As per provisions of Section 13 of the Arms Act, an application for grant of licence shall be made to the licensing authority in such a form containing such particulars as may be prescribed. After following the procedure prescribed, the licensing authority may grant the licence. U/s 14 of the Arms Act, the licensing authority may also refuse to grant licence. Section 15 of the Arms Act provides duration and renew of licence and Section 17 provides that the licensing authority may vary the condition of licence, suspend or revoke the licence. Under Sub Section (5) of Section 17, 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.

12. In the present case, a show-cause notice dated 28.11.2017 was issued to the petitioner by District Magistrate, Ujjain proposing cancellation of licence u/s. 17 of the Arms Act. The petitioner submitted the detailed reply on 1.1.2018. Thereafter, the District Magistrate recorded its opinion and sent the proposal of cancellation of licence of the petitioner to the Secretary, Home Department of the State. Copy of this report was never communicated to the petitioner. The State Government who is licensing authority did not issue any show-cause notice to the petitioner on the basis of such report submitted by the District Magistrate. Therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given an opportunity of effective hearing before revocation/cancellation of his licence.

13. The Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Kailash Nath (supra) has held that before cancelling the licence of fire arms, the licence holder must be given an opportunity of being heard.

14. The apex Court in the case of G. Nageshwara Rao (supra) has held as under :

"30. ........................

The aforesaid decisions accept the fundamental principle of natural justice that in the case of quasi-judicial proceedings, the authority empowered to decide the dispute between opposing parties must be one without bias towards one side or other in the dispute. It is also a matter of fundamental importance that a person interested in one party or the other should not, even formally, take part in the proceedings though in fact he does not influence the mind of the person, who finally decides the case. This is on the principle that justice should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The hearing given by the Secretary, Transport Department, certainly offends the said principle of natural justice and the proceeding and the hearing vien, in violation of that principle, are bad."

15. The apex Court in the case of Maya Devi V/s. Raj Kumari Batra, (2010) 9 SCC 486 has held that the statutory authority exercising quasi judicial function must give reasons while deciding the case. Para 21 to 30 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below :

"21. That brings us to the question whether the Division Bench of the High Court committed a mistake in ignoring the fact that the Single Judge who dismissed the first appeal filed by the judgment debtor had recorded no reasons in support of the order passed by him. It was, according to Mr. Kapoor, necessary for the Single Judge to give reasons in support of the order made by him howsoever brief the same may have been. The absence of any reason in the order passed by the Single Judge was, argued the learned counsel, sufficient for the Division Bench to set aside the same and remit the matter back for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. In as much as the Division Bench ignored that legal deficiency in the order and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits, it committed a mistake that ought to be corrected by this Court, was the only submission made by Mr. Kapoor that merits consideration.

22. The juristic basis underlying the requirement that Courts and indeed all such authorities, as exercise the power to determine the rights and obligations of individuals must give reasons in support of their orders has been examined in a long line of decisions rendered by this Court. In Hindustan Times Limited v. Union of India & Ors, (1998) 2 SCC 242 the need to give reasons has been held to arise out of the need to minimize chances of arbitrariness and induce clarity.

23. In Arun s/o Mahadeorao Damka v. Addl. Inspector General of Police & Anr, (1986) 3 SCC 696 the recording of reasons in support of the order passed by the High Court has been held to inspire public confidence in administration of justice, and help the Apex Court to dispose of appeals filed against such orders.

24. In Union of India & Ors. v. Jai Prakash Singh & Anr, (2007) 10 SCC 712 , reasons were held to be live links between the mind of the decision maker and the controversy in question as also the decision or conclusion arrived at.

25. In Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors, (2010) 3 SCC 732 , reasons were held to be the heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an essential feature of the principles of natural justice, that ensure transparency and fairness, in the decision making process.

26. In Ram Phal v. State of Haryana & Ors, (2009) 3 SCC 258 , giving of satisfactory reasons was held to be a requirement arising out of an ordinary mans sense of justice and a healthy discipline for all those who exercise power over others.

27. In Director, Horticulture Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjivan Parshad, (2008) 5 SCC 539 , the recording of reasons was held to be indicative of application of mind specially when the order is amenable to further avenues of challenge.

28. It is in the light of the above pronouncements unnecessary to say anything beyond what has been so eloquently said in support of the need to give reasons for orders made by Courts and statutory or other authorities exercising quasi judicial functions. All that we may mention is that in a system governed by the rule of law, there is nothing like absolute or unbridled power exercisable at the whims and fancies of the repository of such power. There is nothing like a power without any limits or constraints. That is so even when a Court or other authority may be vested with wide discretionary power, for even discretion has to be exercised only along well recognized and sound juristic principles with a view to promoting fairness, inducing transparency and aiding equity.

29. What then are the safeguards against an arbitrary exercise of power The first and the most effective check against any such exercise is the well recognized legal principle that orders can be made only after due and proper application of mind. Application of mind brings reasonableness not only to the exercise of power but to the ultimate conclusion also. Application of mind in turn is best demonstrated by disclosure of the mind. And disclosure is best demonstrated by recording reasons in support of the order or conclusion.

30. Recording of reasons in cases where the order is subject to further appeal is very important from yet another angle. An appellate Court or the authority ought to have the advantage of examining the reasons that prevailed with the Court or the authority making the order. Conversely, absence of reasons in an appealable order deprives the appellate Court or the authority of that advantage and casts an onerous responsibility upon it to examine and determine the question on its own. An appellate Court or authority may in a given case decline to undertake any such exercise and remit the matter back to the lower Court or authority for a fresh and reasoned order. That, however, is not an inflexible rule, for an appellate Court may notwithstanding the absence of reasons in support of the order under appeal before it examine the matter on merits and finally decide the same at the appellate stage. Whether or not the appellate Court should remit the matter is discretionary with the appellate Court and would largely depend upon the nature of the dispute, the nature and the extent of evidence that may have to be appreciated, the complexity of the issues that arise for determination and whether remand is going to result in avoidable prolongation of the litigation between the parties. Remands are usually avoided if the appellate Court is of the view that it will prolong the litigation."

16. In view of the above, the impugned order is unsustainable, hence deserves to be quashed.

17. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to decide the matter afresh. Now the petitioner has already received the copy of the enquiry report along with return, therefore, he is directed to file a detailed reply within a period of thirty days from today. Respondent No.1 is directed to afford personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a speaking order within a period of forty five days.

18. With the aforesaid, this petition stands partly allowed. For a period of 45 days, the petitioner is restrained to run his shop in respect of sale of arms and weapons, but he is permitted to do the work of repair of the weapons.

No order as to costs.