Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jabbar Singh Rajpurohit vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:36120]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4/2025
Jabbar Singh Rajpurohit S/o Shri Rewant Singh Rajpurohit, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Udainagar Bawdi Kala, Tehsil And P.s.
Phalodi, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Division Jodhpur.
3. The Additional District Magistrate (First), Jodhpur (Raj.).
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur Rural (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Pareek
Mr. Ramdev Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
12/08/2025
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers :-
(i) the impugned order dated 15/07/2019
(Annexure-3) and judgment dated 01/04/2024
(Annexure-5) may kindly be quashed & set
aside and the Respondents may kindly be given
direction to grant Arms License to the Petitioner
for 12 bore single barrel gun according to
Provisions of Arms Act 1950 and Arms Rules,
1962.
(ii) Any other order favourable to the Petitioner
may also be passed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the
impugned order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Additional
[2025:RJ-JD:36120] (2 of 3) [CW-4/2025]
District Magistrate (I), Jodhpur and order dated 01.04.2024
passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur makes the
following submissions :-
(i)- The petitioner faces a serious threat, as a revenue suit
under Section 251A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was
filed against the respondents. Due to the initiation of these
proceedings, there was a potential risk of an attack by the
respondents. To ensure his safety, the petitioner moved an
application for an arms license. However, the District
Magistrate rejected the application by the impugned order
dated 15.07.2019 in a cursory manner.
(ii)- Furthermore, the Divisional Commissioner dismissed
the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated
01.04.2024 without duly considering submissions made by
the petitioner. The appellate authority failed to take into
account the explanations provided by the petitioner, which
detailed the threat perception he faced.
2.1 In view of the submissions made above, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that both the impugned orders may be
quashed and set aside and the respondent-Department be
directed to consider his application for grant of arms license.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material available on record.
4. At the outset, it is observed that the threat perception raised
by the petitioner in the present writ petition stems from a revenue
suit filed under Section 251A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
When inquired about the current status of the revenue suit,
[2025:RJ-JD:36120] (3 of 3) [CW-4/2025]
learned counsel for the petitioner informed that the matter has
since been settled between the parties.
4.1 Apart from the threat alleged in connection with the revenue
suit, no other grounds have been raised by the petitioner to
substantiate the claim of threat or justify the issuance of an arms
license.
5. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in
the impugned orders, particularly considering that the alleged
threat arises from revenue suit proceedings which have already
been resolved between the parties.
6. In view of the discussion made above, no case for
interference in the impugned orders in the present writ petition is
made out.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
8. Pending application, if any, stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
60-Rmathur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
