JUDGMENT :

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 18.11.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by the District Magistrate, Jind, whereby the petitioner’s request for renewal of his arms licence dated 27.02.2012 (Annexure P-1) was declined, as well as the order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was holding an arms licence, which had also been renewed twice, and thereafter when an application for renewal of the licence was made, the same was declined vide order dated 18.11.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by the District Magistrate, Jind. The appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P- 4), which is stated to be unreasoned and cryptic. He submitted that the reason assigned by the District Magistrate, Jind, for declining the renewal of the arms licence was with regard to pendency of some FIRs against the petitioner, whereas in fact the position is that the petitioner was involved in total four FIRs, out of which, at the time of the decision of the learned Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, who was the appellate authority, the petitioner was already acquitted in two cases and the remaining two cases were pending. This aspect has already been noted by the learned Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and the present position is that the petitioner stands acquitted in three cases and there is only one case bearing FIR No. 1022 dated 23.12.2017, which is although under the Arms Act but the petitioner is not arraigned as an accused in the aforesaid FIR, and in this way there is no case pending against the petitioner.

3. He further submitted that it is a settled law that mere pendency of an FIR does not become a ground for non-renewal of the licence. He also submitted that, as per the impugned order passed by District Magistrate, Jind, it has been observed in para No. 3 in very general and vague terms that public peace is always likely to be disturbed if such type of men are having arms licences and weapons. He also submitted that the aforesaid observations have been made in general terms but there is no specific observation pertaining to the present petitioner, as there is no material on record, nor has it been stated by the learned District Magistrate, Jind, as to on what basis the carrying of an arms licence by the petitioner would disturb public peace and in the absence of any such material, the order dated 18.11.2022 (Annexure P-3) is liable to be set aside being unreasoned and cryptic. He also submitted that when the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, the learned Appellate Authority, after noting that the present petitioner had been acquitted in two cases did not set aside the order passed by the District Magistrate, Jind and rather upheld the same without giving any reasons and by just observing in para No. 7 that the order passed by the District Magistrate, Jind appears to be fair and just. He further submitted that both the aforesaid orders are liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the reason for non-renewal of the arms licence of the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Jind was, as observed in para No. 3, that public peace is likely to be disturbed and because of the likelihood of public peace being disturbed, the licence was not renewed. So far as the learned appellate authority is concerned, he also submitted that he cannot controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that no independent reason has been given by the appellate authority.

5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

6. The