Ritesh Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

“A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue commanding and directing the respondents concerned to produce before the Hon'ble Court

¶22

2

¶23

all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioners for its kind perusal.

¶24

B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of any appropriate writ and set aside order dated 30.5.2024 (Annexure P-1) and or a writ or order directing Superintendent of Police (Respondent No. 4) to reconsider the report of police station and pass additional/new report mentioning reason.

¶25

C. A writ and or an order in nature of any appropriate writ providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before the appellate authority and or before the Superintendent of Police.

¶26

D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case.

¶27

E. Cost of the petitioner may also be awarded.

¶28

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed an application (Annexure P-2) before Respondent No. 2 for grant of an arms license, whereupon reports were sought from the Superintendent of Police, Bemetara, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nawagarh, District Bemetara. In these reports, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nawagarh, District Bemetara, recommended that an arms license be granted to the petitioner; however, the Superintendent of Police, Bemetara, did not recommend the issuance of an arms license in favor of the petitioner. Solely on the basis of the said recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate, Bemetara, rejected the application for an arms license filed by the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by District Magistrate, Bemetara has also been rejected by the Commissioner, Durg Division, vide Annexure P-1 dated 30.05.2024.

¶29

3. It is further submitted that the District Magistrate, Bemetara, and the Commissioner, Durg Division, have passed the aforementioned orders without due application of mind; therefore, the Petitioner prays that the order passed by the District Magistrate on 24.04.2023, and the order passed by the Commissioner, Durg

¶30

3

¶31

Division, on 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) may be quashed, and the matter be remanded to the District Magistrate, Bemetara to pass speaking and reasoned order on the application filed by the Petitioner (Annexure P-2), after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶32

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that he has no objection to allow the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner.

¶33

5. The petitioner has filed copy of the note-sheets prepared by the District Magistrate of Bemetara, which reveals that these note-sheets were authored by his subordinate officer recommending therein that since the Superintendent of Police, Bemetara, had not recommended the issuance of an arms license in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner for the arms license be rejected. District Magistrate, Bemetara vide order dated 24.04.2023, did not pass any speaking / reasoned order, rather he only approved the proposal of his subordinate officer without application of mind, whereas, if District Magistrate /Authority declined to grant arm licence, then he ought to have passed speaking order considering the grounds mentioned by the petitioner for grant of arm licence. It is obligatory to grant a licence if an Indian Citizen applies for it for the reason of his protection. In that case, refusal to grant it, will be unjustified and unsustainable, provided the petitioner has duly justified the reasons and adhered to the procedures /conditions as laid down in this regard.

¶34

6. In the case in hand, the petitioner is seeking arm licence for his protection, but District Magistrate, Bemetara without passing any speaking order and without considering the necessity of the petitioner has rejected application, that too, only by approving the proposal of his subordinate officer / employee without application of mind.

¶35

7. The order passed by the District Magistrate, Bemetara was challenged by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg and same was decided vide impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 30.5.2024, whereby Commissioner, Durg has also not

¶36

4

¶37

considered aforesaid aspects while upholding the order passed by the District Magistrate, Bemetara. Sicne, unreasoned and non-speaking order has been passed by both the Authorities, therefore, alleged order dated 24.4.2023 passed by District Magistrate, Bemetara and impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 30.5.2024 passed by Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg in Revenue Case No. 877 B-121 year 2022-23 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Magistrate, Bemetara with a direction that after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, fresh reasoned and speaking order be passed on the petitioner’s application seeking grant of arm licence.

¶38

8. Let this exercise be done by the District Magistrate, Bemetara within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt / submission of copy of this order.

¶39

9. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶40

Sd/(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶41

AMITKUMAR Digitally signedby AMITKUMAR DUBEYDate: DUBEY 2026.03.1611:20:28 +0530

Ritesh Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Guldasta Parveen Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Kumar Ghosh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramlal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nandram Navrang Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Govind Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh