[2025:RJ-JD:36122]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2385/2019 Buta Singh S/o Shri Gurdev Singh, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste Jat Sikh, Resident Of Village Dhaba Jhalar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary, Home Affairs Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner Division, Bikaner.

3. Additional District Magistrate, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.R. Goyal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Neelam Sharma, AGC.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

Reserved on : 12/08/2025 Pronounced on : 19/08/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 10.11.2014 (Annex.3) passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar so also the impugned order dated 14.11.2018 (Annex.4) passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner Division, Bikaner in Appeal No.20/2014.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Additional District Magistrate, Suratgarh has denied the renewal of Arms licence bearing No.03/2004 issued to the petitioner on the ground that criminal cases were registered against the petitioner.

He submits that out of the two criminal cases as mentioned in the impugned order, in one case a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the second case was decided while extending the benefit of probation. He further submits that both incidents occurred in year 2008 and subsequent thereto, no criminal case has been registered against the petitioner.

2.1 He contends that the impugned order dated 10.11.2014 has been passed without assigning any reasons. The order is non- speaking and there is no finding as to why the renewal of the licence would be against security of public peace or against the public interest.

2.2 He submits that being aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2014, an appeal was preferred before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, however, the same was also decided in a cursory manner affirming the order passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Suratgarh.

2.3 He argues that the learned Appellate Authority has neither assigned any reasons nor has the counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed any material to show how the renewal of the licence would be against the public interest.

2.4 In support of the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.576/2003 (Khem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 18.01.2005 and submits that the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with identical controversy observed that the authority while refusing renewal of licence have to assign reason as to how the renewal, during pendency of the criminal case, would be against the public interest.

In view of the submissions made above, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned orders be quashed & set- aside and appropriate directions be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner afresh.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, she is not in a position to refute the observation made by the Division Bench in the case of Khem Singh (supra).

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. A bare perusal of the order dated 10.11.2014 would reveal that though there is a reference to two criminal cases registered against the petitioner, however, no reason is assigned as to how the renewal would be against the larger public interest.

5.1 Similarly, even the Appellate Authority has simply recorded the submissions made by Government Counsel and has not given any definite finding.

5.2 The Division Bench of this Court in Khem Singh (supra)

while de