ISH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR VJrit Petiticn No. 2&9? Of 2006 Vasudev Nag, son of Late $hiv Kumar Nag, Ric: Vinage Pandawahi, Thana Sihava, Thsii Nagari, District Dhamtari (CG). Petitioner Versus Resnondents 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Coiiector, Shamtari, District Dhamtari (CG). 2) Sub Divisionai Magistrate, Tahsii — Nagaré, DEstric: ahamta.’i (CG). 3} Ta'nsiwar, Tahsél — Nagari, District Dhamtari (CG) 4) Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG). (Writ Petition under Articie 226/227 of Constitu&§on of :ndia) SB: Hon”b!e Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. Awadh Tripathi, counsei forthe petitioner. Mr. Vinay Harit, Depuiy Advocate Generai for éhe State. ORAL‘ CRDER iPassed on t is 22““ day of January, was) With the consent of learned counsei appearing for the parties, the matter r is heard finaliv. a 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the i; Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari, has recommended to grant the license of one 12 Bore Gun No.2540 N2 NAL-W, W-GRIEND, Birmingham, Engiand, to the petitioner as the same was granted to his father, who had died on 4—“i £934, earlier to protect his farms from wild animais. 3‘; Per contra, Sub Divisionat Magistrate. Nagari. has stated that the license should not be granted as there is a wild tife sanctuary close by the area where the petitioner resides. The Coiieotor, Dhamtari, without examining both the aspects and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, accepted the recommendation of Sub Divisionai Magistrate, Nagari and by order dated 15-1 1-2065 (Annexure P12) without assigning any reason, deciined to transfer the license of the aforesaid gun in favour of the petitioner. ~ Z; i have heard iearned counsei appear'mg for the parties, perused the pieadings and documents appended thereto. rt is evident that the ciecision 6f the Coiiectw is not based oh the application of mind as no reasons have been ass%gned by the Collector; Dhamtari. Therefore, the impugned order dated 15- 11-2005 {Annexure P12) is quashed. The mattet is remitted back to the Coliector, Dhamtari: to pass a fresh reasoned order applying the mind after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. 4) Accordingly, the petition is ailowed to the above extent. No order asto Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge costs.