RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Ashwani Talwar, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the order dtd. 8/5/2015 (Annexure P-12) rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 9085 of 2015, District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Panipat was directed to decide the application dated 1.3.2013 of the petitioner for issuance of arms licence within a period of two months specifically noticing the fact that the case of the petitioner was fully covered under clause (ii) and (iii) of the policy dated 31.3.2010 (Annexure P-10), yet vide impugned order dated 20.7.2015 (Annexure P- 13), the claim of the petitioner for grant of Arm Licence for non-prohibited bore in order to enable him to take back the possession of the SBBL Gun lying in the custody of Police Station Madlauda, District Panipat owing to the demise of his father, has been declined. The order does not reflect as to how and in what manner the same has been rejected. The operative part of the order dated 8.5.2015 reads thus:-

(2.) The operative part of the impugned order, whereby the application of the petitioner has been rejected, reads thus:-

(3.) The impugned order reflects that the licences only for prohibited bore are to be considered under the Family Heirs Policy. However, the application submitted by the petitioner for Arms Licence possessed by his father is not of a prohibited bore. The expression Family Heirs Policy would be considered as non-prohibited bore and this expression has not been interpreted in correct perspective, i.e., in terms of clause (ii) of the policy, which reads thus:-