1 CGHC010354982026 2026:CGHC:40294 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4676 of 2026 1 - Santosh Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Gaurishankar Agrawal Aged About 58 Years Proprietor M/s Anmol Motors At New Bus Stand, Korba Tehsil And District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department , Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector / District Magistrate Korba District- Korba (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15/09/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and direct the RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.09.16 18:42:32 +0530 2 respondent authorities, specifically respondent No. 02 to renew the petitioner’s Arm License numbered K-461/2005 strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Act in a time bound manner in the interest of justice. 10.2 Alternatively, this Hon’ble may kindly be pleased to pass any such order(s) that it deems fit in the present set of facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2, being the competent licensing authority under the Arms Act, 1959, is required to take a reasoned decision on the petitioner’s application for renewal of the arms licence. He further submits that the renewal has remained pending since the communication dated 09.02.2024 and that the representations dated 30.07.2025 and 04.08.2025 have also not been considered. He next submits that mere pendency of the criminal case in Crime No.306/2017 under Sections 406, 411 and 109 of the IPC and Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, which relates to commercial/regulatory transactions and involves no allegation of violence, breach of public peace or misuse of firearms, does not by itself constitute a bar to renewal under Sections 14 or 17 of the Arms Act. He also submits that respondent No.2- Collector/District Magistrate Korba (C.G.) ought to have independently considered the statutory requirements instead of mechanically relying upon the adverse recommendation of respondent No.3- Superintendent of Police Korba (C.G.), and that the prolonged and unexplained 3 inaction on the renewal application and subsequent representations is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of fairness and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner’s application for renewal of the arms licence, along with the representations submitted by him, may be considered and decided by respondent No.2-Collector/District Magistrate, Korba (C.G.) in accordance with law. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.2-Collector/District Magistrate, Korba (C.G.) to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending application for renewal of the arms licence along with his representations dated 30.07.2025 and 04.08.2025, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim. 5. With this observations and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju