SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 7497

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
SRI RAJU AMBORE S/O SHANKARARAO – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE – Respondent
WP 100745/2026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.100745 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. RAJU AMBORE S/O. SHANKARARAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MARATHA COLONY, DHARWAD, DISTRICT. DHARWAD-08.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARANABASAVARAJ C., ADVOCATE AND SRI. KUSHAL KAMBLE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, HUBLI-DHARWAD, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI, DISTRICT. DHARWAD-25.

2. THE SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011.

…RESPONDENTS Digitally s Y i A g S n H ed A V by ANT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR NARAYANKARDate:

2026.02.18 10:45:02 +0530 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT, DATED:21.11.2025 BEARING NO.CP/MAG- 1/ARMS/205/2025, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A. B. ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO RENEW THE ARM/GUN LICENCE OF THE PETITIONER BY THE CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE- D, DATED 08.08.2025 AND ACCORDINGLY RENEW THE ARM GUN OF THE PETITIONER FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS; C. ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION DEEMED FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THIS CASE IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

“a. Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari, quashing the Impugned Endorsement, Dated: 21.11.2025 bearing No.CP/MAG- 1/ARMS/205/2025, issued by the 1st Respondent vide ANNEXURE-A.

b. Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to Renew the Arm/Gun Licence of the Petitioner by the considering the application submitted by the Petitioner vide Annexure-D, dated 08.08.2025 and accordingly renew the Arm Gun of the Petitioner for a period of 5 years;

C. Issue any other writ order or direction deemed fit in the circumstance of this case in interest of justice and equity.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he is a resident of Dharwad District and is residing in the same address from more than 20 years. He is an Agriculturist and was an Ex-Corporator of Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation. Considering the threat the petitioner is having, he had applied for the arms licence and the licence was granted on 11.03.2008 and from time to time the said licence is renewed and the licence was valid till 31.08.2025. Then for renewal of the licence, after following the procedure, he has offered the renewal from the respondent No.1. Pursuant thereto, the police authorities have conducted the enquiry and antecedents’ verification and respondent No.2 submitted a proposal to respondent No.1 for renewal of the arms licence of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 by the endorsement impugned has rejected the renewal of arms licence of the petitioner on the ground that he has attained the age of 60 years and as such, he has no life threat.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the said observation of the respondent No.1 is without any material and without any basis. When a thorough inquiry is conducted by the respondent No.2 and when a report is placed before the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 ought to have considered the same and ought to have given a reason for not renewing the arms licence of the petitioner. It is contrary to Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act’). It is submitted that the endorsement impugned needs to be set-

aside.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/Police submits that, as there is no life threat to the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top