Chandrika Ganeriwala v. State Of Haryana And ORS

CWP-9747-2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (103) CWP-9747-2024 Date of decision:- 08.05.2024 Chandrika Ganeriwala

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate with Mr. Arun Biriwal, Advocate and Mr. Paramdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

...

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral) 1.

Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India inter alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2, to expeditiously take a decision in respect of Arms Licence case forwarded by respondent No.3, vide letter dated 03.01.2022, Annexure P-2.

2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner possesses an Arms Licence bearing No.9645/DM/SSA, Annexure P-1, issued by the Licensing Authority, Sirsa, which is valid till 11.06.2025. He submits that petitioner applied for extension of validity of the Arms Licence throughout the country and after completing procedural formalities, respondent No.3, recommended the case to respondent No.2, vide letter, Annexure P-2, but no decision has been taken. He has made a reference to PARDEEP NAUTIYAL 2024.05.08 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-9747-2024 -2instructions dated 27.01.2017, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to submit that renewing authority of Licence under the Arms Act, 1959, is the District Magistrate. 3.

Advance copy of the petition has been served upon the State. 4.

State counsel has received instructions from Ms. Suman Bansal, District Attorney, Home Department, Haryana, and states that the application of the petitioner is pending.

5.

I have heard counsel for the parties.

6.

It is surprising to notice that petitioner had applied for extending the validity of the Arms Licence in the year 2021 and the application is pending, despite a lapse of three years. A mandamus, therefore, deserves to be issued to the respondents.

7.

Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to take a final decision on the application within a period of four months from the date of communication of the copy of this order. 8.

Needless to mention, in case, respondent-authorities came to the conclusion that the application deserves to be rejected, they shall pass an order assigning reasons for rejection and communicate it to the petitioner. (SUVIR SEHGAL) 08.05.2024 JUDGE Pardeep Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes/No PARDEEP NAUTIYAL 2024.05.08 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.