Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswant Singh And Co vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 13 October, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
CWP-14729-1995
1995 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
101
CWP-14729-1995 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 13.10.2025
JASWANT SINGH AND CO.
CO
....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
....RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Udit Garg, Advocate and
Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Verma, Addl. AG Punjab with
Mr. Manjeet Singh, Sr. Assistant
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J. (ORAL)
(ORAL
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned show cause notice dated 07.04.1995 (Annexure P-7) P 7) and also impugned order dated 15/21.09.1995 (Annexure P-9)
9) by which the renewal of Arms Licences No.1 of 1982 in Form XII, amendment of licence form XI in lieu of licence No.14 of 1971 and restoration and renewal of licence in Form IX, has been refused, with further prayer to direct the respondents to renw llicence icence No.1 of 1982 in Form XII beyond 31.12.1992 to issue amended licence in Form XI in lieu of Form licence No.14 of 1971 and renewal thereof, and to restore and renew Form IX of the petitioner-Company.
petitioner
2. Para wise reply by way of an affidavit of Mr. P Para-wise Paramjit aramjit Singh, Under Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs, has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 to the CM CM-9206-2025, 2025, which is taken on record. A copy of the said reply has also been handed over to the learned for the petitioner i.e. Mr. Udit Garg, Advocate.
3. Learned State counsel would submit that the petition has been rendered infructuous as the relief sought in the instant petition has earlier been granted by renewal of licence vide Forms No.VIII and IX at Annexure R--2 and R-4, 4, respectively. Learned State counsel, on instructions from Mr. Manjeet Singh, Sr. Assistant, would further submit NAINA KATHIAT 2025.10.17 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14729-1995 1995 (O&M) - 2- that the issue for manufacturing of the arms has to be dealt with by the Central Government and not by the State Government.
4. In counter to the same, Mr. Udit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner would submit that it is the renewal of two licences only vide Form VIII i.e. qua the sale and Form No.IX, which relates to the repair of the Arms but the issue qua the renewal of licence, which was for manufacturing and in the petition a specific relief has been sought for this renewal and manufacturing of licence as well. It is pointed out that prior to Rules, 2016, Form No.IX was meant for the purpose of manufacturing, which is now Form No.VII and on that, no decision has been taken by the State Government.
5. At this stage, Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner puts in appearance and while assisting the Court, submits that though substantial relief sought in the p petition etition stands satisfied vide order dated Nil (Annexure P-16), P 16), attached to CM CM-9206-2025, 2025, but the issue of renewal, manufacturing of licence and the quantity for which the permission to sell, repair and manufacturing has been granted is for lesser quantity, for which he seeks reconsideration.
6. Mr. Rajiv Verma, Addl. AG Punjab Punjab,, on instructions from Mr. Manjeet Singh, Sr. Assistant, submits that in case, the petitioner makes a representation with no other grouse left out, the same will be considered in accordance rdance with law while adjudicating it.
7. In the light of the above, this petition has been rendered infructuous. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation for the left out grievances, if any and the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Home),, who is the competent authority to decide the representation, shall decide it, within a period of 02 months from the date of its receipt, by passing a speaking order, as per law.
8. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms having been rendered infructuous.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
13.10.2025
NainaRajput
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
NAINA KATHIAT
2025.10.17 09:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document