JUDGMENT :

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. 

1. The present Civil Writ 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 the impugned order dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the arms licence of the petitioner has been cancelled and order dated 16.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, with a further prayer to direct the respondents to restore and revive the licence of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was holding an arms licence, on which two weapons are entered, namely, .32 bore revolver and 12 bore double-barrel gun and by way of the impugned order dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, the arms licence of the petitioner was cancelled only on the basis of pendency of FIR No.133 dated 24.08.2022, under Sections 323, 325, 148 and 149 of the IPC. She further submitted that the aforesaid FIR pertains to causing hurt and it is a settled law that mere pendency of an FIR itself cannot become a ground for cancellation of an arms licence, particularly when the licence is issued for the purpose of self-defence. She further submitted that the aforesaid licence was not cancelled under any provision of law or within the parameters of Section 17 of the Arms Act but it has been cancelled only on the basis of mere pendency of an FIR. She further submitted that when the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner, Rupnagar Division, Rupnagar, the same was dismissed without recording any reasons and by just stating that as per the rules, such a person against whom a case has been registered, it is not proper to issue arms licence to him. She also submitted that the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner, Rupnagar Division, Rupnagar clearly reflects a non-application of mind and is contrary to law. Had there been any such rule, the Commissioner, Rupnagar Division, Rupnagar, was under an obligation to have at least mentioned it but since no rule exists providing that an arms licence can be cancelled only on account of pendency of an FIR, the aforesaid order is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a dispute between the petitioner and another resident of the village and a false FIR under Sections 323, 325, 148 and 149 of the IPC was registered against the petitioner, which is pending. She also submitted that the cancellation of the arms licence rather goes contrary to the purpose for which it was issued, namely, self-defence and therefore, the cancellation of the arms licence is illegal not only because it does not fall within any of the grounds provided under Section 17 of the Arms Act but also because it is contrary to the scheme of the Act itself and consequently, both the aforesaid impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 09.02.2026, both the Additional District Magistrate, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar and the Commissioner, Rupnagar Division, Rupnagar have filed their respective affidavits. So far as the affidavit dated 17.02.2026 filed by the Commissioner, Rupnagar Division, Rupnagar is concerned, she submitted that the Commissioner has stated in the said affidavit that he has recently joined the office of the Commissioner and the impugned order was passed by his predecessor and therefore, no answer has been given with respect to the order passed by his predecessor.

5. While referring to paragraph No.4 of the affidavit dated 19.02.2026 filed by the Additional District Magistrate, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, learned State counsel submitted that the Additional District Magistrate has stated while answering the query of this Court that u