Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner, while holding an arms licence (No. 241/2004) for muzzle loading gun, applied for change of different weapon; and the Additional District Magistrate, Sriganganagar proceeded to issue an outside licence (No. 29/2004) to the Petitioner. The licence so issued for different weapon was questioned by the District Magistrate, Sriganganagar and after due notice and hearing, the District Magistrate proceeded to cancel the licence on various grounds including want of compliance of the requirements of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 1962 by his order dated 21.01.2008. The order so passed by the District Magistrate, Sriganganagar has been affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner in the judgment and order dated 27.02.2008 while dismissing the appeal (No. 39/2008) preferred by the Petitioner.
(2.) BY way of this writ petition, the Petitioner seeks to question the aforesaid judgment and order dated 27.02.2008 (Annex. 7) as passed in Arms Act Appeal No. 39/2008 on various grounds. However, the fact of the matter remains that similar writ petitions involving akin issues were considered and dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 29.09.2008; and the intra -Court appeals have also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 21.01.2011 in a batch of appeals led by SAW No. 572/2009: Rajendra Singh v. State and Ors. The Hon'ble Division has found the outside licence issued to the similarly placed Petitioners unsustainable for want of compliance of the requirements of the Arms Rules, 1962; and for the fundamental lacuna that while granting such outside licences in the sensitive border area of Sriganganagar, the requirements of police verification were not followed. The view taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the aforesaid decision in Rajendra Singh's case squarely covers the subject -matter of this writ petition; and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed accordingly. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, submitted that the Petitioner may be given liberty to apply for licence afresh. It appears that such a liberty was granted by the Hon'ble Single Judge in the aforesaid decision dated 29.09.2008 as noticed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in its judgment dated 21.01.2011. Hence, it does appear appropriate to observe that the Petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for licence afresh, in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made by this Court in the decisions aforesaid.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY and with the observations foregoing, the writ petition stands dismissed.;