[2025:RJ-JP:4440] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20565/2017 Babulal S/o Parsadi, R/o Binua, Tehsil And Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector, Bharatpur. 2. Munshi Lal S/o Parsadi Lal, R/o Binua, Tehsil And Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Prasad Sharma for Mr. Prahlad Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar for Mr. Indresh Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 31/01/2025 1. Matter has come up on an application (1/2024) filed by the applicant under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, seeking his substitution in place of original petitioner who has passed away on 15.08.2023. 2. The original petitioner filed instant writ petition, feeling aggrieved by dismissal of his appeal No.12/2011 against denial for renewal of armed license by the Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur vide order dated 07.02.2011. 3. The writ petitioner, being the original licence holder of arms, in that capacity pursued the appeal for renewal of armed license and under the Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rule, 2016, there is no specific provision to transfer the right to retain/ maintain the armed license to another person. Applicant claims himself to be [2025:RJ-JP:4440] (2 of 2) [CW-20565/2017] natural son/ legal heir of deceased petitioner and in that capacity seeks to continue the issue of renewal of arms licence, issued in favour of his father (now deceased). Rule 25 of the Arms Rule, 2016, apply in such situation but the arms licence of father of applicant had already been cancelled, for the reasons assigned in the order by the Competent Authority that he remained indulged in criminal activities. Thus, it is not a similar case of transfer of arms licence of deceased in favour of his natural heir. Hence, Rule 25 does not render any support to the applicant to continue the cause of action. In this way applicant miserably failed to establish his legal right for survival of cause of action and seeking his substitution in place of deceased petitioner to continue the writ petition. 4. This Court is of opinion that the cause of action does not survive to the legal heir of deceased petitioner, hence, the application (1/2024) under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the applicant to apply for issuance of arms licence afresh in accordance with law. 5. Since the original petitioner has passed away, the writ petition does not survive hence, the writ petition is also dismissed. 6. Any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/104