IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH PETITIONER W.P. N0. H 67/2004/ .A ^ / \t^<''{ !.^^9y \^Y"<^" .^* ^ w^. ^^ .,f^a^ o' -^ 1^w ^ ^ ^^w'' ^y^ ^•^ ,•• ^^ RESPONDENTS Ramdas Singh, aged about 73 years, S/o. Radhakrishna Singh, R/o. Chitakhor Podi, Chiriniri, Distt. Baikunthpur (C.G.) VERSUS : 1 The Director Police Department Raipur (C.G.) / ^^^==- ^lS^^C\o^ ^.r^.^y.,/ ?<"% ^<' ^ / > ^- 1^^ ^^if\^ 2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Police n^r.®^'^^.' ^ ^ """^' '"""" "^ J v"'u:"" &/ }^^^ Raipur (C'G') 3. District Magistrate Sarguja(C.G.) 4. The Collector -^r- ^&T^? B&dcu»ti?tpy^-(C.G.) ' x' ^/2^7 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 22^/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , FOR ISSUANCB OF WRIT MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND/OR QUO WARRANTO AND/OR QTHER WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION IN THE SAME NATURE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. r' XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^T f^ri^F^n^T 5h*i ^a ~5^T '^IP ^[, ^Til^^s<o, i^^ij^y ^lfWII^W^^-^-\^^^ "IN^y' 200 3??T^T'^TT^R'Hf^ 13-7-2004 Ms. Sudha Agrawal, counsel| Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Deputy Heard both the counsel, The peTitioner has prefej 226/227 of the Constitution of be directed to relea^. the armsl petitioner. Th©petition of the petitio Constable and Fire Arm licence On 12-11-1979, the District submitt&d a r&port to th& Collfic| friend nameiy, Dafedar Singh To| his rifle and said bafedar Sin9h villagers. On receiving this rep|< show cause notic®to the petition^ cancelted ond vsde order dated suspended the licence of the petil The petitioner filed an Bilaspur, which was dismissed dated 5-3-1984. ^l^t^^ll 'RTH^ff ^ fe^ <Fai-^t< ^37f^rq3?I^T jfor thepetitioner. ^oyt. Advocate for respondents. Fe|rred this petition under ArticJes I(idia, ^^sking relief that respondents licence No.1/1974 in favour of the io|ier is that th©petstioner was H@ad No.1/1974 was issued in his favour. ^uperintendent of Police, Sar9uja, 1-or that the petition&r is having on& jwhom the petitioner is handing over |s misusmq that rifle to threaten the spjort, the District Magistrate issued sr as to why his lic^nc^ should not be 5-1-1980 the bistrict Magistrate joner. appeal before the Commissioner, lj>y the Commissioner vide jts order r XI-HC-22 'sy. ^'a=j ^i^Kn^ ^Ti1^^<o, f^<rlf<f3'< ^§*1^! ^hW^ 3ff^T 'q^g? ...^..f......\^.fS^ 200 'I^^T' ^TT^i^r k'iich a^r 5b^ich ^Rff T sn^r^Ri^RTif^i —z,. °M<4l<n<i1i 'qTH^ff ^ fe^ ij^^ ^ 3T(^TH 3TT^T A perusal of th© order p^ssecl by the appellate outhority (Annexure-P/1) dated 5-3-84 r^veQ\s that the licence of the petitioner for keeping 9un in his pc^ of misuse of the 9un. The petitioner has not been ssession was suspended on account xble To show that how he is entitled for the reviyal of the licence h hb favour, Since there were ajlegations against him regarding mjsu^ of the gun and that order was passed in 1+ie year 1982 against whjich an appeal was preferred and the same was dismissed by the Commi^sioner vide its order dated 5-3-84, in the circumstances, I do noll find any justification to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under ^ of India, ther&fore, th& writ petiti^n is dismissed. In view of this order, I.A. h|o.4l61/2004 stoyids dispo^d of. rticle 226/227 of the Constitution Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ["^ft^^fe^