Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALJIT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-7661-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 5790 (22 August 2006)

C.W.P NO. 7661 OF 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.W.P NO. 7661 OF 2006

Date of decision : August 24, 2006

* * * * *

Baljit Singh ............Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab & others ...........Respondents * * * * *

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S BHALLA

Present: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

The arms license of the petitioner has been ordered to be cancelled by the Additional District Magistrate, Mansa on the ground that he had not applied for renewal within time. Learned Additional District Magistrate has observed that he has retained a 12 bore gun without having any valid arms license and had applied for renewal after the expiry of 11 months and 25 days. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed.

The claim of the petitioner has been contested by respondents C.W.P NO. 7661 OF 2006 2

no. 1 to 3. In the written statement filed by them, similar pleas have been raised by the respondents to defend the action of the cancellation of the arms licence.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and in our considered view, a hyper technical view has been adopted by the respondents in cancelling the arms licence of the petitioner and not renewing the same. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had, in any manner, misused the arms in question. Merely, because the petitioner had applied for renewal after some delay should not be the only ground to refuse the renewal of arms licence.

Consequently, we allow the present petition and quash the orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 passed by the authorities. We remit the matter back to the Additional District Magistrate, Mansa to reconsider the claim made by the petitioner and pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law.

The petitioner shall appear before the Additional District Magistrate, Mansa on September 25, 2006 at 10:00 A.M.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the usual charges.

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

August 24, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

ritu JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.