JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. (Oral):- Feeling aggrieved against the impugned communication dated 14.1.2013 (Annexure P-3) purportedly issued on the basis of communication dated 14.5.2012 (Annexure P-4), petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.5.2012 (Annexure P-4). 2. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No.2, whereas a separate written statement was filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 and 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the communication dated 14.5.2012 (Annexure P-4) issued by Superintendent of Police, Sonepat-respondent No.3 is cryptic and non speaking. He further submits that based on that communication dated 14.5.2012 issued by respondent No.3, no order is being passed by the competent authority, i.e. District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat-respondent No.2 without disclosing any reason. He further submits that petitioner will be satisfied, in case respondent No.3 is directed to conduct an objective enquiry so as to submit his appropriate report to the competent authority, i.e. District Magistrate, Sonepat, within a reasonable time and thereafter respondent No.2 may be directed to decide the matter at an early date. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner is not entitled for issuance of arms licence, as a matter of right. Relevant provisions of law have to be complied with. Respondent No.3 did not recommend issuance of arms licence in favour of the petitioner and thereafter respondent No.2 did not pass any order, in that regard. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. 6. A bare reading of the so called report made by respondent No.3 would show that it is totally non-speaking and cryptic on the face of it. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. 6. A bare reading of the so called report made by respondent No.3 would show that it is totally non-speaking and cryptic on the face of it. It reads as under:- “It is written on being sent back in original alongwith the report of local police to District Magistrate Sonepat that in view of the new instructions of government the issuance of arm licence of applicant Ashok Kumar son of Shri Mahabir resident of Dhanana is not recommended.” 7. Further, when the vernacular of impugned communication dated 14.5.2012 (Annexure P-4) was gone into, it transpired that there was a written proforma, wherein only the exercise of fill in the blanks was done. Serial number, date of the communication and name of the petitioner were inserted. It shows total non application of mind. Such a non-speaking communication issued by respondent No.3, cannot be sustained. 8. So far as the communication dated 14.1.2013 (Annexure P-3) issued by the office of respondent No.2, is concerned, the relevant part thereof, reads as under:- iii) The police has not recommended for issue of Arms Licence in the name of your client. Hence decision for issuing/not issuing arm licence has still not been taken by the Granting Authority.” 9. The information supplied to the petitioner, vide communication dated 14.1.2013, would show that District Magistrate, Sonepat-respondent No.2 did not take any decision. It is also crystal clear that office of respondent No.2 proceeded on an equally casual approach, while deciding the right of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 was under legal obligation to seek appropriate report from respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 was also under legal obligation to submit appropriate report after due application of mind and after getting the desired enquiry conducted. However, both these respondents have failed to perform their duties. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that Superintendent of Police, Sonepat-respondent No.3, as well as District Magistrate, Sonepat-respondent No.2 did not pass the appropriate orders at the relevant point of time, thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this Court. 10. However, both these respondents have failed to perform their duties. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that Superintendent of Police, Sonepat-respondent No.3, as well as District Magistrate, Sonepat-respondent No.2 did not pass the appropriate orders at the relevant point of time, thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this Court. 10. It goes without saying that as and when a citizen approaches the competent authority, while raising his grievance, the competent authority is duty bound to look into the grievance of the citizen and redress the same, by passing an appropriate order at an early date, so as to make the citizen aware about the result of his representation or legal notice. Even this has not been done in the present case. Petitioner had to approach District Magistrate under the Right to Information Act and only thereafter, he was informed vide communication dated 14.1.2013 (Annexure P-3). 11. It is a sorry state of affairs and it seems that the State Litigation Policy framed by the respondent-State, is being given a complete go-by by the competent authorities, who are under legal obligation to act, in accordance with the State Litigation Policy. The present one is a glaring example, wherein the State Litigation Policy has also been violated by both the Officers, i.e. District Magistrate, Sonepat, as well as Superintendent of Police, Sonepat. However, this Court restrain itself from commenting any further on this aspect. 12. No other argument was raised. 13. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed. 14. Consequently, the impugned communication dated 14.5.2012 issued by Superintendent of Police, Sonepat. respondent No.3 is hereby ordered to be set aside. Superintendent of Police, Sonepat-respondent No.3 is directed to look into the matter, get an appropriate enquiry conducted and then submit his report to the District Magistrate, Sonepatrespondent No.2, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. After receipt of the report from Superintendent of Police, Sonepat-respondent No.3, District Magistrate, Sonepat-respondent No.2 shall pass a speaking order on the entitlement of the petitioner for issuance of arms licence. 15. After receipt of the report from Superintendent of Police, Sonepat-respondent No.3, District Magistrate, Sonepat-respondent No.2 shall pass a speaking order on the entitlement of the petitioner for issuance of arms licence. If claim of the petitioner has to be denied by the District Magistrate, he shall pass a speaking and well reasoned order and intimate the same to the petitioner, as well. 16. With the observations made and directions issued, here-inabove, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs. ----------------