Amanpreet Singh Vs Additional District Magistrate, Sundergarh

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶21

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶22

“It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court shall

¶23

be pleased to admit the writ application, issue notice the Opp. Parties and upon hearing the parties, be pleased to

¶24

(i) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the OP-1 to renew the Arms License bearing No. 20 of 16/2010 (RKL) in favour of the Petitioner within a specified time period.

¶25

(ii) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate

¶26

Page 1 of 4.

¶27

writ directing the OP-2 & 3 to supply the up to date case details in respect of;

¶28

1. Udit Nagar PS Case No. 30 dtd. 13.02.2017, U/s 279/337 IPC

¶29

2. Plantsite PS case no. 267 dtd. 12.09.2017 U/s 338/287 IPC as indicated under Annexure-4 of the writ petition to the OP-1 within a short period.

¶30

(iii) And pass any other order/orders as deem fit and proper.”

¶31

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties in renewing his Arms License has approached this Court by filing the present writ application with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to expedite the whole process and to take a final decision with regard to renewal of his Arms License. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that although several enquiries have been made by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Rourkela, who is the competent authority, for renewal of such license and the report has been received by the Additional District Magistrate, Rourkela, however, the application of the Petitioner has not been processed yet. Further, drawing attention of this Court to the letter dated 18.03.2025 at Annexure-17, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that another report has been called for from Superintendent, Rourkela with regard to the renewal of Arms Licence of the Petitioner. Similarly, another letter has been issued to the Inspector-in-Charge of the Raghunathpalli P.S, Rourkela calling for a report in Form S- 4 of the Arm Rules, 2016 vide letter dated 05.06.2025. Since no

¶32

Page 2 of 4.

¶33

report has been submitted by the authorities, the application of the Petitioner has not been processed. Challenging the aforesaid inaction, the Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider the prayer of the Petitioner for renewal of his Arms License as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶34

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, on a perusal of the documents annexed to the writ application, it gives an impression that the application of the Petitioner for renewal of his Arms License is under process. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ application is premature and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed at the threshold.

¶35

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the documents annexed to the writ application, this Court finds that several reports have been called for from the Superintendent, Rourkela as well as the Inspector-in-Charge, Raghunathpalli P.S. It further appears that due to non-availability of the report by such authorities, the application of the Petitioner has not been considered. The delay in consideration of the application of the Petitioner for renewal of his Arms License goes against the very objective of the Arms Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present application by directing the authorities to submit their report in compliance to the letters under Annexure-17 and 18, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks

¶36

Page 3 of 4.

¶37

from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. Similarly, this Court directs the Additional District Magistrate, Rourkela-Opposite Party No.1 to consider and dispose of the application of the Petitioner strictly in terms of the Arms Act and the Rules framed thereunder after taking into consideration of the report of the authorities to be submitted in compliance to the letter under Annexure-17 and 18 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such report. Any decision taken by the authorities from time to time be communicated to the Petitioner.

¶38

With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶39

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶40

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶41

Anil

¶42

Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4.

¶43

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-Jan-2026 09:57:31

Amanpreet Singh v. Additional District Magistrate, Sundergarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amanpreet Singh v. Additional District Magistrate, Sundergarh

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

Nakula Charan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Manjari Jema Vs State of Odisha

Bharati Jena Vs State of Odisha

Biswanath Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Benugopal Behera Vs State of Odisha

Satyananda Barik Vs Naguni Barik