Manjit Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1968 P&H

CWP-1599-2020                                                           -1-

207

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH


                                                           CWP-1599-2020
                                                Date of decision: 23.03.2022


MANJIT SINGH
                                                                  ...Petitioner

                                   Versus


STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
                                                                ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:-   Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate and
            Mr. H. S. Deol, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, DAG, Haryana.

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India seeking quashing of impugned order dated

04.12.2019/31.12.2019 Annexure P-3, whereby application of the petitioner

for renewal of his arms licence has not been recommended taking into

account FIR No.141 dated 03.04.2016, registered under Sections 120-B,

406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC at Police Station Pehowa, District

Kurukshetra as well as FIR No.1697 dated 21.11.2015, registered under

Sections 135 and 138 of the Punjab Excise Act, at Police Station Ambala

City.

Learned counsel for the petitioner herein assails the said order

by contending that the application for renewal though notices the fact that

1 of 3

the petitioner has been acquitted under FIR No.141 and a cancellation report

had already been preferred in the FIR under the Punjab Excise Act, yet the

authority concerned has not recommended the renewal of the licence which

would defy logic. It is argued that as on date, there is no matter pending

against the petitioner under the Arms Act as has already been noticed and,

therefore, the decision not to renew the licence would not be sustainable. It is

further argued that there is catena of judgments available to the effect that

pendency of an FIR would not be a reason enough to deny renewal of a

licence and it is for the criminal Courts to look into the issue whether the

licence is to be suspended or not. It is further argued that in fact, after the

filing of the instant petition, a show cause notice has also been issued to him.

Learned State counsel would submit that the writ petition is

premature as only a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and

the petitioner herein has failed to put in an appearance to file a reply to the

said show cause notice and in case a reply is filed, the same would be looked

into and considered in accordance with law. He relies upon the written

statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 dated 14.05.2020.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and deem it

appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by directing the petitioner

herein to take all the pleas available to him and file his reply to the show

cause notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified

copy of this order and on receipt of the said reply, the authorities concerned

are directed to take a decision on whether or not the licence of the petitioner

is to be suspended or renewed keeping in view the fact that as on date, there is

no matter pending against him, which facts stand noticed by the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate, Pehowa himself. The decision taken would be

2 of 3

communicated to the petitioner within a period of six days of passing the

order.

The present petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid

observations.

                                                  (JAISHREE THAKUR)
23.03.2022                                              JUDGE
Chetan Thakur




                Whether speaking/reasoned :             Yes     No

                Whether Reportable :                    Yes     No




                                     3 of 3