DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved against the impugned orders dated 29.3.2007, 24.2.2011 and 25.3.2011, Annexures P -10, P -19 and P -20, respectively, passed by the respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition under Art.s 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders, whereby the request of the petitioner for grant of P.B. Arms licence of .38 bore revolver under the Transfer/Family Heirloom policy, was rejected. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that father of the petitioner was an ex -serviceman and he was holding a P.B. Arms licence No. 301/C/Dec. for .38 bore revolver, originally issued by the office of District Magistrate, Kaithal, w.e.f. 5.1.1976. He was keeping a .38 bore revolver No. 655581 for his personal use, safety and security. The licence used to be renewed regularly by the competent authority. Father of the petitioner died on 28.11.2003. The arms licence was in the possession of the petitioner. Petitioner deposited the weapon with the prescribed authority, i.e. Kurukshetra Armoury, Arms & Ammunition Dealers 3, Railway Road Kurukshetra vide receipt dated 29.11.2003 (Annexure P -3). After under -going the requisite training and claiming himself to have become entitled and eligible for grant of P.B. Arm licence of .38 bore revolver under the Transfer/Family Heirloom policy, petitioner applied to the competent authority. However, his request was turned down vide impugned order dated 29.3.2007 (Annexure P -10).

(2.) PETITIONER made repeated representations on which the District Magistrate, Kurukshetra, recommended the request of the petitioner for its sympathetic consideration vide communication dated 26.2.2008 (Annexure P -14). However, respondent No. 4 again rejected the request of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 24.2.2011 (Annexure P -19) observing that after reconsideration of the matter, petitioner was not found entitled for grant of P.B. Arm licence of .38 bore revolver under the Transfer/Family Heirloom policy. Consequently, the impugned order dated 24.2.2011 (Annexure P -19) was communicated to the petitioner by respondent No. 1 by way of impugned communication dated 25.3.2011 (Annexure P -20). Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 4 has been taking totally different stands at different points of time, which is clear from a bare perusal of the impugned orders and stand taken in the reply filed to this writ petition. He further submits that for granting arms licence in question under the policy, no report from the intelligence bureau, as such, was required. He next contended that respondent No. 4 has proceeded on wholly misconceived and perverse approach only with a view to deny the rightful claim of the petitioner, taking different stands at different times. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned orders by allowing the present writ petition.