Allowed

Surender Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Apr 2009CWP/5804/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an arm licence renewal plea. The rejection was based on pending prosecutions that were later concluded, resulting in compounding or acquittal. The court directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the matter.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Bhiwani, to reconsider the entire issue afresh and conclude the exercise within fifteen days.

Surender Singh Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.5804 of 2009

¶2

-1-

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Civil Writ Petition No.5804 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.04.2009.

Surender Singh

Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.

¶12

Present: Mr. R.S.Tacoria, Advocate for the petitioner.

S.D.ANAND, J.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Ashish Sharma learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

The impugned arm licence had been obtained by the presently Bhiwani District based petitioner from the Arms Licensing Authority, Faizabad (UP). He filed a plea for renewal thereof. The District Magistrate, Bhiwani, declined the plea by relying upon the report made by the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani to the effect that the petitioner is facing prosecution in two FIRs (FIR No.164/96 under Sections 323,325 and 34 IPC and FIR No.6/2000 under Sections 109, 114, 115, 120, 147, 148, 149, 186, 189, 332, 341, 342,

¶18

Civil Writ Petition No.5804 of 2009

¶19

-2-

¶20

********

¶21

353, 500, 503, 506 IPC both registered at Police Station, Badhra). In support of the plea for declining, the District Magistrate also relied upon the fact that the report had not been received from his counter part at Faizabad inspite of the repeated requests in the relevant behalf.

¶22

It is apparent from the record that both the prosecutions aforementioned have since been concluded. Annexure P/1 is the judgment dated 28.4.2001 vide which the prosecution in former case came to a close on account of compounding; while Annexure P/2 indicates that the petitioner was acquitted by giving to him (and also the co-accused) benefit of doubt.

¶23

The facts noticed above would indicate that the foundational premise on the basis whereof renewal of arm licence had been declined is no longer in existence.

¶24

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2- District Magistrate, Bhiwani, to reconsider the entire issue afresh in the light of the facts noticed above. The exercise shall be positively concluded within fifteen days from today.

¶25

April 18, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge

Surender Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darshan Lal and Anr. Vs Gurbaksh Singh

Bheem Sain and Anr. Vs Arjun Singh and Ors.

Aman Coop. Labour and Const. Socieity Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ajit Singh Vs Sita Devi

Hsidc Estate Industrial Association Vs M/S Osaw Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Hsidc Estate Industrial Association Vs M/S Osaw Indsutrial Products Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.