Manpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

2024:PHHC:050767 CWP-6682-2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (105) CWP-6682-2024 Date of decision:- 16.04.2024 Manpreet Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: Mr. Ranwant Singh Sangha, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Amrita Garg, AAG, Punjab.

...

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral) 1.

By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has approached this Court inter alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2, to issue a new Firearms License to the petitioner. 2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had applied for issuance of a License under the Arms Act, 1959, and had deposited the requisite fee and also furnished the necessary documents vide application dated 24.11.2021, Annexure P-4. He submits that petitioner underwent the medical examination and also supplied a Certificate of Training to the authorities, who are sitting on his application. 3.

Pursuant to previous order passed by this Court, State counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit of District Magistrate, Sangrur, on KAMAL SHARMA 2024.04.18 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

2024:PHHC:050767 CWP-6682-2024 -2behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, which is taken on record. On the basis of the affidavit, State counsel submits that the application is under consideration with the competent authority. Still further, it is her submission that the model code of conduct has been imposed and the application is not likely to be decided before the result of General Election, 2024 are declared as most of the officers have proceeded on election duty.

4.

I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions.

5.

Concededly, application submitted by the petitioner for grant of Fire Arms License, is pending and has not been decided almost for the last two and a half years. Response filed by the respondents does not show any justification for the delay and a direction deserves to be issued to the licensing authority to wake it from slumber.

6.

Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to decide application, Annexure P-4, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7.

Petition is disposed of.

(SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE 16.04.2024 Pardeep Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No KAMAL SHARMA 2024.04.18 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh