HARPREET Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 /227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 07/08/2018 and 26/03/2011 (Annexures P/1 and P/2) with further direction to the respondents to grant N.P. Bore pistol/revolver license to the petitioner forthwith. The respondents have passed the impugned order dated 07/08/2018 (Annexure P/1) which is reproduced herein below for ready reference and convenience :-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily placed reliance on the provisions of section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 wherein, the reasons for refusal of the arms license has been specified. It is submitted by Shri Dudawat that none of these reasons have been specified in the order impugned and the same is contrary to the provisions of law which is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Vijay Sundram, learned Panel Lawyer for the State contended that though the petitioner has raised the objection that while recommending his case for grant of license by concerned authorities i.e. Commissioner, District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, the arms license has not been granted to the petitioner. On reading of impugned order (Annexure P/1), it is crystal clear that the competent authority has rightly passed the impugned order in accordance with notification Annexures R/1 & R/2, therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.