Rajeev Kumar Alias Rajeev Kumar Babbar v. District Magistrate, Ludhiana And ANR

CWP-26363-2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (109) CWP-26363-2024 Date of decision:- 08.11.2024 Rajeev Kumar @ Rajeev Kumar Babbar

...Petitioner

Versus

District Magistrate, Ludhiana and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, with Mr. Inderjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Brijesh, Assistant Advocate General, 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 the respondents to renew the firearms license bearing No.DM/LDH/JGRN/May-2000, Annexure P-1.

2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner applied for renewal of the arms license on 08.05.2017, Annexure P-3, however, the application is pending. He submits that the application, Annexure P-3, is not being considered, as the petitioner has been named as an accused in case FIR No.114, dated 28.06.2016, registered for offences under Sections 306 and 506, IPC, at PARDEEP NAUTIYAL 2024.11.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-26363-2024 -2Police Station Sri Muktsar Sahib. He submits that after investigation, a cancellation report has been presented to the Trial Court. Counsel submits that the petitioner sent a request letter, Annexure P-5, to the District Collector, Ludhiana, pointing out that he is facing threat from the gangsters and although, this letter has been forwarded to the Additional District Magistrate, Jagraon, vide Annexure P-6, but no action has been taken. 3.

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

State counsel submits that he does not have any instructions. 5.

Be that as it may, the application for renewal of the arms license is pending for the last more than seven years and final decision has not been taken. Therefore, this Court is of the view that a command is deserves to be issued to the authority concerned to decide the application, Annexure P-3. 6.

Accordingly, a direction is issued to respondent No.2, to decide the application, Annexure P-3, within a period of four months, from the date of communication of a copy of this order. In case respondent No.2 finds that the application deserves to be rejected, a reasoned order for rejection, shall be passed and supplied to the petitioner.

7.

Petition is disposed of.

(SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE 08.11.2024 Pardeep Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes/No PARDEEP NAUTIYAL 2024.11.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.