logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Jhar HC 146 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Jharkhand
Case No : WP(C) No. 2016 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
Parties : Harsh Swetabh Versus State of Jharkhand & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: Shadab Bin Haque, Rahul Kumar, Aaryamann Relan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Zeeshan Ahmad Khan, AC to SC-VII.
Date of Judgment : 01-04-2026
Head Note :-
Comparative Citation:
2026 JHHC 9128,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Arms Act, 1959
- Arms Rules
- Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India

2. Catch Words:
- mandamus

3. Summary:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the licensing authorities to grant an arms licence, alleging threat to life and violation of Articles 14 and 21. The State counsel suggested filing a fresh representation before the Deputy Commissioner (Licensing Authority) as per the Arms Act and Rules. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within four weeks and mandated that a decision be taken within eight weeks. If granted, the licence must be issued within two weeks; if rejected, reasons must be communicated. The Court’s directions were intended to ensure procedural compliance. The writ petition was consequently disposed of.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

                  a) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Respondent Authorities particularly Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the application of the petitioner and perform their duties by granting Arms Licence to the Petitioner under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 in view of the fact that the petitioner application for license has been pending since long and he has genuine threat of his life as well as his family.

                  b) For direction upon the respondent to take a uniform decision on the application of the petitioner which the petitioner had preferred in the year of 2024 and subsequently an enquiry has been made and enquiry report has also been forwarded to the respondent no. 3 on 03.08.2024 but they are still sitting tight over the matter and not performing their duties.

                  c) For direction upon the respondent particularly respondent nos. 2 and 3 to consider the application of the petitioner and grant gun license in favour of him as the petitioner has immense threat of life as well as his family.

                  d) For holding and declaring that the inaction of the respondent authorities in not considering the petitioner's grievances and failing to ensure protection to his life and property is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. AND/OR

                  Pass such order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and roper in the interest of justice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as his representation is already pending before the respondents, suffice it would be, if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that if the petitioner files a fresh representation before the respondent no. 2-the Deputy Commissioner cum District Arms Magistrate (Licensing Authority), his case will be considered as per the law considering the provisions under the Arms Act and Arms Rules.

5. Considering the submission of the parties, I direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent no. 2-the Deputy Commissioner cum District Arms Magistrate (Licensing Authority) along with the copy of this order who will consider the case of the petitioner as per the law considering the provisions under the Arms Act and Arms Rules.

6. The representation should be filed within four weeks and the decision should be taken within eight weeks thereafter.

7. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled for arms license the same should be extended to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. If the claim of the petitioner is rejected for any reasons whatsoever the reasons should be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.

8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal