Serial No. 2 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through VC) LPA 282/2025 CM(7367/2025) CM(7368/2025) CM(717/2026) UT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS HOME DEPARTMENT …PETITIONER(S) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG, with Ms. Mandeep Kour, Assisting Counsel. V/s. M/S JAGJIT GUN WORKS ...RESPONDENT(S) Through: Mr. Anil Sethi, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASH PAUL BOURNEY, JUDGE. ORDER 22.09.2026 1. The appellant has prayed the following relief: “a. Set aside and quash the impugned order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in OWP No. 1977/2017.” 2. The issue pertained to a direction by this Court to the District Magistrate, Jammu, to take possession of approximately 293 guns lying in the premises of the petitioner, put them to auction, and deposit the auction proceeds in an interest-bearing account. The writ petition, however, was disposed of at the threshold. 3. Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG., submits that this Court, while deciding the earlier petition, OWP No. 926/2012, on 04.01.2013 has observed as follows: “14. Shri A.S.Panwar the then Section Officer claimed by the petitioners to have made endorsement on the licence granted to Shri Amar Nath @Amroo adding Shri Vinay Kumar, has denied to have made any such endorsement. The official record produced by Ministry of Home Affairs through Shri Sanyal, Under Secretary, therefore belies the petitioner's case set out in OWP No.840/2012, 926/2012, OWP No.65/2012 and OWP No.1211/2012 and lends support to the Gun Manufacturing Association case set up in OWP No.944/2012 and OWP No.911/2012. The petitioners Shri Surat Singh and Shri Vinay Kumar appear to have fabricated the record and forged the gun licences that they claim to have been issued by: Ministry of Home Affairs in their favour.” 4. Ms. Kohli further submits that the auction of the guns is not possible, as the guns themselves do not qualify as lawful weapons, and that any such auction would therefore not be in the right spirit. 5. The counsel for the respondents submits that a subsequent development has taken place and that the respondents have been exonerated of the charge of holding a forged licence, but at the same time fairly submits that they neither claim the guns nor are now interested in any claim arising from those 293 guns. 6. In view of the aforesaid limited submission of the counsel, the impugned order is quashed and set aside, and it is directed that the 293 guns, which are now admittedly in the possession of the State respondents, shall be disposed of strictly in accordance with law. (YASH PAUL BOURNEY) (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR: 22.09.2026 Junaid