High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dharampal Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 January, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharampal Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 January, 2009
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                  CHANDIGARH


                                  C.W.P NO. 741 OF 2009
                                  DECIDED ON : 23.01.2009


Dharampal Singh
                                      ...Petitioner
          versus

State of Haryana and others
                                      ...Respondents



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT



Present : Mr. Rajender Malik, Advocate,
          for the petitioner.


SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner’s grievance is that the arms license

which was issued in his favour by the Deputy Commissioner of

Police-cum-Licensing Authority, New Delhi bearing No.

WDJP/8/2001/102 (old No. WDVP 080102), the original of which

has unfortunately been misplaced by him, is not being renewed

by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Sonepat

nor a duplicate copy thereof is being issued by the third

respondent, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Police-cum-

Licensing Authority, New Delhi.

On a perusal of the documents on record, it appears

that respondent No.3 while issuing ‘No objection Certificate’ in

favour of the petitioner, has acknowledged the fact that a valid

arms license was issued in the petitioner’s favour. However,
C.W.P NO. 741 OF 2009 -2-

renewal thereof cannot be done by the District Magistrate,

Sonepat as the original license is stated to have been misplaced

by the petitioner. If that is so and if respondent No.3 is satisfied

that the petitioner has lost his original arms license, there

appears to be no legal impediment for issuance of a duplicate

arms license. More so, when respondent No.2, as stated in his

reply dated 04.12.2008 (Annexure P-7), has sent five reminders

to that effect.

In view of the fact that respondent No.3 has not

responded to various communications sent by respondent No.2

and the matter is hanging fire, however, without expressing any

opinion on merits, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ

petition with a direction to the third respondent, namely, the

Deputy Commissioner of Police, Licensing Authority, New Delhi to

sent an appropriate reply to the communications received by him

from respondent No.2, so as to enable it to take appropriate

decision in the matter.

Needful be done within one month from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this order.

JANUARY 23, 2009                            (SURYA KANT)
shalini                                         JUDGE