H.R.PANWAR, J. - (1.) BY the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders Annex. 9 dt. 30.10.2007 and Annex. 11 dt. 25.01.2008 passed by District Magistrate, Hanumangarh and the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner respectively.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the material on record. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner's father Shri Keshara Ram held the two guns i.e. .12 bore gun and one ML Gun under a valid licence, however, after death of petitioner's father, .12 bore gun went in the share of petitioner's brother who got the licence for .12 bore gun and got the .12 bore gun endorsed on his licence and one ML Gun came in the share of the petitioner and since the petitioner had a licence for M.L. Gun the said gun has been endorsed on the licence of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 13 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'the Arms Act' hereinafter) before the Licensing Authority for converting bore of Muzzle Loading gun to that of .12 bore gun. By order dt. 22.03.1990 the competent Licensing Authority granted the change of bore from Muzzle loading to .12 bore in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner sold the muzzle loading gun after having obtained permission from the concerned District Magistrate and purchased .12 bore gun in the year 1990 and the same came to be endorsed on the licence issued in favour of the petitioner. Selling of muzzle loading gun and purchasing of .12 bore gun was with the permission of the concerned District Magistrate and therefore, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner revoking the arms licence by the order dt. 30.10.2007 by respondent District Magistrate, Hanumangarh as also the order passed by the appellate authority dt. 25.01.2008 are bad in law.
(3.) LEARNED Additional Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the orders impugned.;