1. Controversy in writ petitions on hand relates to genuineness/authenticity of gun manufacturing licence bearing No. 1/IX/2010 claimed by Shri Surat Singh S/o Late S. Sadha Singh R/o 26 - A/D, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu (petitioner in OWP No.926/2012), to have been granted by the competent authority in favour of M/s Jagjit Gun Works, Phase-II, Industrial Area, Gangyal, Jammu, authorising it to manufacturer 1840 B.L/M.L.guns per annum with validity up to 31.12.2012 and that of licence No.1/IX/2004 dated 4.11.2004 claimed by Shri Vinay Kumar S/o Roshan Lal R/o 85/7 Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, to have been granted by the competent authority in favour of M/s Himalya Arms Company Industrial Area, Gangyal, Jammu with validity up to 31.12.2012. 2. Shri Surat Singh has filed two writ petition on behalf of M/s Jagjit Gun Works bearing OWP No. 65/2012 and OWP No.926/2012 seeking following relief: i) Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to call and implement their decision of revival of gun manufacturing licence communicated to the State Govt. by respondent No.1 vide communicated dated 19.5.2005. ii) Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow transport, testing permission and manufacturing activity of the petitioner s unit in tune with the license issued by respondent No.1 on the recommendations of respondent No.2 and 3 iii) Writ of mandamus commanding respondents to refrain from interfering into the peaceful and effective business of the manufacturing of guns by the petitioner on a valid licence No.1/IX/2010 issued by respondent No.1 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) and writ of mandamus commanding respondents to refrain from functioning the Gun Manufacturers Association famed unauthorisedly (Annexure E to the petition) 3. M/s Vinay Kumar has filed two writ petitions registered as OWP Nos.840/2012 and 1211/2012. The petitioner on the grounds urged in the petition seeks following relief: i) writ of mandamus commanding officials respondents to order to enquire into the misdeeds of four owners of gun manufacturing factories. ii) writ of mandamus commanding officials respondents to refrain the nineteen permanent and regular customers/shops of the petitioner to purchase guns from alleged owners of gun manufacturing factories. ii) writ of mandamus commanding officials respondents to refrain the nineteen permanent and regular customers/shops of the petitioner to purchase guns from alleged owners of gun manufacturing factories. iii) writ of mandamus commanding officials respondents to refrain the alleged four owners of gun factories and their sister concerns of keep to sell units of guns to sell any gun to the nineteen shops; and iv) writ of mandamus commanding officials respondents to ensure purchase of the marketable guns by the nineteen shops as mentioned in the petition. 4. Gun Manufacturers Association Jammu claims to be an association of gun manufacturers having their gun manufacturing units at Jammu. The Association, is said to have been formed, to promote the business of gun manufacturers and to work for redressal of their grievances. One of the objects of the association is claimed to ensure that only the industrialists/entrepreneurs having genuine licences, are engaged in gun manufacturing business. The association alleges that the gun manufacturing license No.1/IX/2010 and No.1/IX/2004 dated 4.11.2004 claimed by M/s Jagjit Gun Works and M/s Himalayan Arms Company respectively, are nothing but a piece of forgery and do not entitle them to manufacture guns or pursue other activities connected therewith. The Association has filed two petitions being OWP Nos.911/2012 and 944/2012 to protect the rights of the genuine gun manufacturers and to restrain M/s Jagjit Gun Works and M/s Himalayan Arms Company, from carrying on gun manufacturing business. To achieve the objects, the Association seeks a direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 not to permit M/s Jagjit Gun Works and M/s Himalayan Arms Company to carry on the gun manufacturing business and also to discharge their statutory obligations as regards alleged illegal gun manufacturing carried on by the two business concerns under the cover of alleged fake and forged licences. 5. The private respondents in their reply to the petitions filed by M/s Jagjit Gun Works and M/s Himalaya Arms Company, claim that the competent authority has not granted gun licences as claimed in favour of the petitioners. It is insisted that the licence referred to in the petitions, are not genuine and do not confer any rights on the petitioners to indulge in gun manufacturing business. The respondents controvert all the factual averments made in the petitions. 6. It is insisted that the licence referred to in the petitions, are not genuine and do not confer any rights on the petitioners to indulge in gun manufacturing business. The respondents controvert all the factual averments made in the petitions. 6. The stand taken by the official respondents in reply to the petition filed by the Association is identical to one taken in opposition to the petitions filed by M/s Jagjit Gun Works and Himalaya Arms Company. However, the private respondents reiterate their claim set out in their petitions, to the effect that they have valid licenses and are competent to carry on the business of Gun manufacturing. 7. As the controversy raised in the writ petitions on hand is factual in character, a notice was directed to be issued to Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi to produce the record available in the Ministry of Home Affairs (Arms section) regarding the licences in question including file No. V-11024/5/96 Arms. In compliance of the order dated 30.10.2012, Shri Molay Sanyal, Under Secretary, Govt. Of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, has come present with the requisite record. 8. I have gone through the pleadings as also record made available by Mr. Molay. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties. 9. The petitioners case as detailed above is that they hold gun manufacturing licence No.1/IX/2010 and No.1/IX/2004 dated 4.11.2004 issued by the competent authority in favour of M/s Jagjit Gun Works and M/s Himalaya Arms Company on the dates given above and that they under the licenses in question are authorised to manufacture 1840 B.L.Guns and 1500 B.L/M.L.guns per annum respectively. It is further pleaded that they in connection with aforesaid manufacturing activity, have a further right to take all steps like carrying the manufactured guns for inspection by the competent authority outside the State, bring back the guns manufactured and approved by the inspecting authority and put them on sale in accordance with the rules. 10. M/s Jagjit Gun Works traces its license to Smt. Swarn Kour wife of S. Sadha Singh R/o Below Gumath, Jammu. 10. M/s Jagjit Gun Works traces its license to Smt. Swarn Kour wife of S. Sadha Singh R/o Below Gumath, Jammu. It is pleaded that Gun Manufacturing License under No.DM-8/Arms/59-60 was issued to Smt. Swarn Kour by District Magistrate Jammu on 15.3.1960 and renewed upto 31.12.1961; that Smt. Swarn Kour approached the State Government for renewal of licence in 1994 where upon her case was recommended vide Home-AR-25/94 dated 31.1.1994 to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India; that after the demise of Smt. Swarn Kour, proprietor Jagjit Gun Works, her legal heir Shri Surat Singh pursued the matter and supplemented his claim inter alia on the ground that gun licence had been renewed in favour of M/s Himalaya Arms Company after a period of 43 years and Gun Manufacturing quota also enhanced to 500 B.L.guns per annum. It is claimed that the gun manufacturing licence was finally granted on 19.5.2010 by the Ministry of Home Affairs with permission to manufacture 1840 B.L/M.L Guns per year and the licence is to expire on 31.12.2012. 11. Shri Vinay Kumar traces gun licence No 1/IX/2004 dated 4.11.2004 to a Gun Manufacturing Licence No.1-J/DM.Arms dated 23.5.1955 issued by District Magistrate Jammu to one Shri Masoo Ram Lohar R/o Jajar Kotli in 1955 and renewed up to 1961; that Shri Shri Amar Nath @ Amroo S/o Rupa Lohar approached the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, for renewal of license and the license was finally renewed on 4.11.2004. It is pleaded that S/Shri Roshan Lal Verma and Vinay Verma entered into a partnership with Shri Amroo S/o Rupa Lohar R/o village Hurlani Tehsil and District Jammu whereunder the partners decided to continue to run the business under the name and style of Himalaya Arms Company Phase-III Industrial Area Gangyal, Jammu. It is pleaded that Shri Amar Nath @ Amroo passed away and his son Suram Chand was substituted in his place. Shri Vinay Kumar claims to be a joint proprietor of Himalaya Arms Company and his name duly entered in the licence. He pleads that the company has a right in terms of the license, to carry on the gun manufacturing business. 12. Shri Vinay Kumar claims to be a joint proprietor of Himalaya Arms Company and his name duly entered in the licence. He pleads that the company has a right in terms of the license, to carry on the gun manufacturing business. 12. The respondents in their reply apart from controverting averments made in the petitions insist that the gun licence No.1/IX/2010 and No.1/IX/2004 dated 4.11.2004 were forged and record including the communication from District Magistrate Jammu s office to Ministry of Home Affairs fabricated by the petitioners It is alleged that case FIR Nos.3/2010, FIR 117/2011 and FIR 139/2011 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 RPC, P/S Gangyal, Jammu, FIR No.7/2010 P/S Peer Mitha, Jammu, stand registered against the petitioner Shri Vinay Kumar (copy of FIRs appended with the objections as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4). The respondents insist that the petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands and have withheld necessary information from the Court. 13. The record produced by Shri Molay Samyal, Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, belies the petitioners claim in all the writ petitions. Mr. Molay has in open court in presence of counsel for the parties, referred to the record of Ministry of Home Affairs to point out page by page that neither licence Nos.1/IX/2010 and No.1/IX/2004 dated 4.11.2004 were granted by the Ministry of Home Affairs in favour of M/s Jagjit Gun Works and M/s Himalaya Arms Company after a gap of about 50 years nor were licences ever granted in favour of Shri Surat Singh or Mr. Vinay Kumar or their names entered in the licences granted to M/s Jagjit Gun Works and M/s Himalaya Arms Company licences granted in 1960 renewed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. 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 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. 15. It is not a case where petitioners have tried to build up a case on an erroneous belief or misunderstanding of facts or law and in a bonafide manner invoked writ jurisdiction of the court. The petitioners, as pointed out by Mr. Sanyal, by referring to the official record of the Ministry of Home Affairs produced by him have fabricated the record and thereafter brazenly filed petition after petition to invoke jurisdiction that is essentially equitable in nature. The petitions filed by Shri Surat Singh - OWP Nos. 65/2012 and 926/2012 and by Shri Vinay Kumar - OWP Nos. 840/2012 and 1211/2012, therefore, warrant dismissal with exemplary costs. 16. In the circumstances and for the reasons discussed, OWP No.911/2012 and OWP No.944/2012 are allowed. 17. OWP Nos. 65/2012 and 926/2012 alongwith connected CMAs filed by Shri Surat Singh on behalf of Jagjit Gun Works and OWP Nos.840/2012 & 1211/2012 alongwith connected CMAs filed by Vinay Kumar, are dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- each, to be deposited in the account of J&K State Legal Services Authority. 18. Consequently Contempt (OWP) No.102/2012 stands dismissed. 19. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. 20. Record be handed over to Ms. Deepika Mahajan, CGSC, against proper receipt.