The High Court will not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when an adequate statutory remedy exists, requiring the petitioner to exhaust the appeal process under the Arms Act before seeking judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT :

M. Choudhury, J.

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assail is made to an Order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the District Magistrate- cum-Deputy Commissioner, Cachar whereby an arms licence issued earlier to the petitioner has been cancelled.

2. I have heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6; and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent no. 2.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was a holder of an Arms Licence no. 475/III for a 0.12 Bore SBBL Gun and the said arms licence was issued by the respondent no. 3 after due verification pursuant to an application submitted by him. The arms licence was issued on 31.08.2005. The Licensing Authority after due verification extended validity of the licence up to 2024.

4. When as per requirement of Rule 15 of the Arms Rule, 2016 a Unique Identification Number [UIN] was not generated despite submission of an application by him on 22.11.2022, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 8056/2022. The writ petition came up for consideration on 11.12.2023. The Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, disposed of the writ petition by an Order dated 11.12.2023 directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner’s application for generating UIN in terms of the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 2016 and other extant rules and regulations and to pass a speaking order on merits within a period of six weeks.

5. Thereafter, the respondent authorities had issued the arms licence bearing no. LN04185A7A13B24 with UIN no. 041851004431862024 to the petitioner having a validity period from 12.07.2023 to 11.07.2024. Prior to expiry of the validity period of the arms licence, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal in the prescribed form complying with the procedure and the requisite documents on 24.06.2024. When no decision in the matter of renewal of the arms licence was received by the petitioner despite elapse of sufficient period of time, the petitioner approached this Court by way of another writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 1866/2025. In the said writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 1866/2025, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent no. 3, on 31.10.2025, wherein it was inter-alia mentioned that with regard to the matter of renewal, a Report dated 18.09.2024 was received from the respondent no. 5. In the Report, the respondent no. 5 did not recommend for renewal of the arms licence of the petitioner. Taking into consideration such report, the petitioner’s application for renewal of the arms licence was not allowed. Subsequently, by the impugned Order bearing no. CAA.04/2024/20 dated 20.09.2024, the respondent no. 3 as the Licensing Authority had cancelled the arms licence no. LN04185A7A13B24.

6. Having received a copy of the impugned Order dated 20.09.2024 along with the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 3, the petitioner on 17.11.2025 made a prayer to the court to allow him to withdraw the writ petition to file a fresh one assailing the impugned Order dated 20.09.2024. The said prayer was allowed by the Court on 17.11.2025. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned Order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby, the arms licence issued earlier to the petitioner had been cancelled.

7. Mr. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 has submit