HARDEEP SINGH KHANUJA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the legality and propriety of the order dtd. 6/3/2012 passed by respondent No.2, whereby, the District Magistrate in compliance of the order dtd. 21/2/2012 passed by the Home Department of State Government has rejected his application seeking grant of licence for non-prohibited Bore/Revolver.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is a Colonizer and involved in Construction work, moved an application on 21/10/2010 for grant of licence for non-prohibited Bore/Revolver in the prescribed proforma before the licensing Authority, i.e. respondent No.2 and submitted all the relevant documents along with the requisite fee. It is contended further that the Tahsildar, Bilaspur vide its letter dtd. 10/11/2010 had directed the Patwari to submit his report with regard to movable and immovable properties owned by the petitioner as to whether any land revenue is due on him or not and in pursuance to the said direction, the Patwari had submitted his report and intimated the Tahsildar that the petitioner had movable and immovable properties of about Rs.50.00 lacs and does not have any land revenue dues.

(3.) Further contention of the petitioner is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide its letter dtd. 13/12/2010 has also submitted his report before respondent No.2, while recommending for grant of licence to him with regard to non-prohibited Bore/Revolver, however, despite of such a report favouring to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 vide its impugned order dtd. 6/3/2012 has rejected his application for grant of licence for non-prohibited Bore/Revolver, while intimating that his application has been rejected in pursuance to the memo bearing No.F.18-52/2/Home-C/2011 dtd. 21/2/2012, which was issued by the Home Department of the State. It is contended further that vide letter dtd. 19/11/2012, he approached the respondents for knowing about the reasons with regard to the rejection of his alleged application, but no reply was given, which compelled him for filing of the petition in the instant nature.