Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    GAURAV YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

    105

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

    CHANDIGARH

    CWP-8909-2026(O&M) Date of Decision: 30.03.2026

    GAURAV YADAV

    ....Petitioner(s) Versus

    UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

    .....Respondent(s)

    CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

    Present: Mr. Amaninder Preet, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Dharam Chand Mittal, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.1 and 2.

    Mr. Udit Garg, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ****

    JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral)

    1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the action of the respondents in not recommending the transfer of the arms licence on the basis of report dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P-10).

    2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite an application having been made for transfer of the arms licence on the basis of Heirloom Policy in the year 2023, neither any action has been taken by the respondents nor any order has been passed.

    3. At the outset, Mr. Udit Garg, Additional Advocate General, Haryana has submitted that he has sought instructions in the present case from the concerned authority to state that no order has been passed on the application filed by the petitioner but in case the petitioner files a fresh application before the concerned Licensing Authority, then the same will be considered and decided in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application.

    4. Mr.Dharam Chand Mittal, learned Senior Panel Counsel, has appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2/Union of India and submitted that on a fresh application being filed by the petitioner, the Union of India has no objection in case the same is decided by the concerned Licensing Authority.

    5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, the present petition may be disposed of accordingly.

    6. Ordered accordingly.

    30.03.2026 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)

    rakesh JUDGE

    Whether speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

    2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    GAURAV YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
    (Mar 30, 2026)