MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR,J. - (1.) THE crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner-Mohinder Singh was having a valid arms licence bearing No. 700/May/ 99/Zira, in view of the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and Rules, 1962(hereinafter to be referred as "the Act/Relevant Rules") and purchased a 12 bore double barrel gun bearing No. 20582 of 1997. His arms licence was renewed from time to time. Ultimately, it was valid upto 20.05.2005. The petitioner claimed that since, he is an old illiterate person, remained busy in his daily pursuits and domestic problems, so, he forgot to renew his arms licence in time. As soon as, he came to know about the expiry date, in the meantime, he applied for the renewal of his licence immediately. However, it caused a delay of two years and two months in this regard.
(2.) HAVING received the application for renewal, the District Magistrate, Moga, issued notice, and the petitioner filed the reply and explained the reasons for delay. He also sought the report of the SSP. The District Magistrate ordered the cancellation of the licence of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 07.02.2009 (Annexure P-1). The appeal filed by him was dismissed as well by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division-cum-Appellate Authority(for short "the Appellate Authority), by way of impugned order dated 29.07.2010 (Annexure P- 2). The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, pleading that although the petitioner has duly explained the delay in moving the application for renewal of the licence, but the District Magistrate has illegally cancelled the same. The impugned orders were stated to be arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions of the Act/Relevant Rules. On the basis of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2) in the manner depicted here-in-above.
(3.) THE respondents contested the claim of the petitioner and filed their joint written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. The respondents claimed that the arms licence of the petitioner was expired on 20.05.2005 and there is a considerable delay in filing the application for renewal of his licence. According to the respondents, as the SSP Moga, did not recommend the case of renewal of the licence on account of registration of a case under Section 324 IPC, therefore, the licence of the petitioner was not renewed. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal.;