Disposed¶27

Randeep Thakur v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC6 May 2026CWP/18899/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Surrender and release of licensed arms/weapons; crop protection weapon against wild animals; licence No. LN14283A7A44C17/HP-UNA-201333; Arms Act, 1959; Arms Rule; Sub Divisional Magistrate Haroli, District Una; SHO Tahliwal; writ of mandamus; quashing of order dated 24.11.2025; interim surrender order dated 23.02.2026 abiding outcome of writ petition; disposal of petition as grievance redressed; Randeep Thakur v. State of H.P.; CWP No. 18899/2025; Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; decided 06.05.2026; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted by the Court itself; petition disposed of as the grievance stood redressed by office order dated 16.06.2026 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Haroli, directing release of the licensed arm. ¶27

Randeep Thakur Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 issued by respondent No.1 should be quashed and set aside by way of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶11

Court's answer

The writ petition stands disposed of as the grievance of the petitioner raised therein has been redressed (by the office order dated 16.06.2026 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Haroli, releasing the licensed arm), and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) disposed of CWP No. 18899/2025, Randeep Thakur v. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 06.05.2026. The petitioner had sought quashing of the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 issued by respondent No.1, in terms of which he was to surrender his licenced arms & weapons with respondent No.2/Competent Authority. By interim order dated 23.02.2026 the petitioner was permitted/directed to surrender his licenced arms & weapons, such surrender to abide by the outcome of the writ petition; compliance was reported on 03.03.2026 and an affidavit was filed on 12.03.2026. At the final hearing, the Deputy Advocate General placed on record office order dated 16.06.2026 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Haroli, District Una, directing release of the petitioner's licensed crop protection weapon bearing licence No. LN14283A7A44C17/HP-UNA-201333, upon verification that the weapon was not required in any criminal case, strictly in accordance with the Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rule, with the Station House Officer, Tahliwal, directed to effect release after due identification and verification. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the office order had redressed his grievance; the Court accordingly disposed of the petition and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 18899/2025 Decided on: 06.05.2026 Randeep Thakur …Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

¶5

Coram

¶6

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, vice counsel.

¶7

For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶8

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

¶9

This writ petition has been filed for the grant of

¶10

following substantive relief: -

¶11

“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24^th November, 2025 issued by respondent No.1, in its entirely.”

¶12

2. Following order was passed in this matter on

¶13

23.02.2026: -

¶14

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner will surrender his licenced arms & weapons with respondent No.2/Competent Authority in terms of order dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure P-2) within two days.

¶15

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶16

¶17

Surrender of licenced arms & weapons by the petitioner shall abide by the outcome of writ petition. List on 03.03.2026.”

¶18

On 03.03.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner apprised that the petitioner had complied with the order dated 23.02.2026. Affidavit in this regard was also filed on 12.03.2026.

¶19

During the course of today’s hearing, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record a copy of office order dated 16.06.2026 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Haroli, District Una, relevant portion of which reads as under: -

¶20

“Whereas, an application has submitted by Sh. Randeep Thakur S/o Late Sh. Moola Singh R/o VPO Dulehar Tehsil Haroli, Distt. Una for the release of Crop Protection weapon bearing license number: LN14283A7A44C17/HP-UNA-201333 for safeguarding of crops from wild animals.

¶21

Whereas, upon due verification of records this has found that above weapon is not required in any criminal case.

¶22

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers vested in the Sub Divisional Committee hereby ordered that release of the licensed arm LN14283A7A44C17/HP-UNA-201333 of Sh. Randeep Thakur S/o Late Sh. Moola Singh strictly in accordance with the Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rule, after completing of all procedural formalities.

¶23

The Station House Officer, Tahliwal is directed to release and forthwith, after due identifications of licensee and verification of the validity of arm license.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶25

aforesaid office order has redressed the grievance of the petitioner.

¶26

¶27

In view of above, the present petition to stand disposed

¶28

of as the grievance of the petitioner raised in this writ petition now stands redressed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.

¶29

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Randeep Thakur v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Randeep Thakur v. the State of Hp and Others

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

Poonam Gehlot Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Yadvender Kumar Vs Ashish Kumar Kohli

M/S Alutech Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Pankaj Kaundal and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Seema Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others