Gurmeet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 7590 P&H

106.
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                CWP-15725-2022
                                Date of Decision: 22.07.2022

GURMEET SINGH                                             .... Petitioner

                                Versus


STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS                                .... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR


Present:-   Mr. Ranjit Singh Ghuman, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.
                                ----

JAISHREE THAKUR.J (Oral)

The petitioner herein has approached this Court under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the order dated

24.06.2022 (Annexure P-11) passed by Additional District Magistrate,

Khanna, respondent No.2, who has declined to renew his arms licence.

Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner had

earlier approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition CWP No.8119

of 2022 seeking a limited prayer for the respondents to consider and decide

his application for renewal of arms licence. This Court by order dated

26.04.2022 had disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the

respondents to take a decision on his application in accordance with law. At

that time, counsel for the petitioner had relied upon judgment rendered in

Brijesh Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Civil)

47 to contend that mere registration of an FIR would not be a ground to deny

renewal of licence.

1 of 3

Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the Additional District

Magistrate has decided the matter holding that the petitioner would not be

entitled for renewal of his arms licence on the ground that there are two FIRs

pending against him.

At this stage, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

would argue that the said order would not be sustainable in the light of the

judgment rendered in Brijesh Kumar's case (supra) which has not been

taken note of. He would submit that two FIRs which are pending and

registered against him do not involve the use of arms and no Section under

the Arms Act stands invoked.

Notice of motion.

At this stage, Ms. Akshita Chauhan, AAG, Punjab, who is

present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and raises a

preliminary objection that the instant writ petition would not be maintainable

in the light of Section 18 of the Arms Act which provides for an appeal to be

filed.

Faced with this, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

seeks permission to withdraw the instant writ petition and avail of his remedy

in accordance with law. At this stage, a prayer is made that since he had

approached this Court impugning the order of the Additional District

Magistrate, that period of limitation may be condoned.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that

such remedy may be availed of and has no objection.

In case the petitioner files his appeal before the appellate

authority within two weeks, let the same be decided within a period of two

2 of 3

months thereafter considering the fact that the petitioner had finally applied

for renewal of his arms licence as far back as in 2020.

Petition stands disposed of on the above terms.

                                                (JAISHREE THAKUR)
                                                    JUDGE
22.07.2022
sanjeev
             Whether speaking/reasoned:        Yes/No
             Whether Reportable:               Yes/No




                                3 of 3