- (1.) The petitioner is alleging that though by order dated June 14th, 1999, made in connection with the proceedings initiated for renewal of gun licence, the district magistrate directed the officer-in-charge to release the gun concerned to the petitioner in terms of the order of the court dated May 5th, 1999, the gun was not released, and as a result he could not get the licence renewed.
(2.) By the order dated May 5th, 1999 the court did not order return of the gun to the petitioner, rather it was said that the gun would stand confiscated to the state if it was not taken back by the petitioner within one month by establishing his ownership and producing the licence. Order was made only for returning the lapsed gun licence. The seized gun was not with the officer-in- charge, who was not competent to release and return it to the petitioner as well.
(3.) Hence the district magistrate ought not to have made the order dated June 14th, 1999 directing the officer-in-charge to return the gun to the petitioner. The remedy of the petitioner, if any, was before the appropriate criminal court, since by the order dated May 5th, 1999 his prayer for return of the gun was not allowed. I therefore do not find any reason to make an order directing the officer-in-charge to carry out the direction given by the district magistrate. For these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order for costs in it. Urgent certified xerox copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties, if applied for, within three days from the date of receipt of the file by the section concerned.;