$~94 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3074/2026 Date of decision: 11.03.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

PARDEEP KUMAR GILANI .....Petitioner (Through: Appearance not given.)

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents (Through: Ms. Shubhi Bhardhwaj (SPC), Mr. Deepansh Sharma (GP), for R-1 and 2 along with Mr. Naresh (Inspector)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) 1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-

“(a) Pass/ Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, quashing the impugned Order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, in Appeal No. 25 OF 2019;

(b) Pass/ Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, quashing the impugned Order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Licensing Unit, Delhi, cancelling Arms License No. ODRH/11/2009/2 of the Petitioner; and (c) Pass/Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondents to forthwith revive/restore Arms License No. ODRH/11/2009/2 of the Petitioner.

(d) Pass any other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. According to the petitioner, he was granted a license for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunitions under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Act). However, vide order dated 26.02.2019, the license was revoked by the Licensing Authority under Section 17 of the Act. Against this order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Act, and the same was rejected vide order dated 17.07.2019.

3. As per the order dated 26.02.2019, the license was revoked on the ground that he had violated Rule 32 of the Arms Rules, 2016 as well as the conditions of the license by taking the licensed weapon beyond the licensed area and engaging in celebratory firing. It is also noted that F.I.R. No. 191 of 2016 (F.I.R.) qua offences under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioner and that he had failed to inform the Licensing Authority about the same. Further, the Licencing Authority was of the opinion that there was no valid reason for the grant of the license to the petitioner, on the basis of the threat assessment report received from the local police.

4. The Appellate Authority, in the impugned order dated 17.07.2019 has found no ground to interfere with the order of the Licensing Authority.

5. According to the petitioner, the F.I.R. has been quashed by this Court, and therefore, the Licensing Authority ought not to have revoked the license for non-disclosure of the F.I.R. Further, the petitioner claims that he is a jeweller and his business maintains a large stock of valuable jewellery and cash rendering him vulnerable to theft and robbery. It is his case that, therefore, the Licensing Authority could not have concluded that there was no valid reason for grant of the license.

6. At the outset, it is seen that the impugned orders were passed in the year 2019, and the petitioner has challenged the same only in the year 2026, i.e., after about seven years.

7. The Supreme Court, in its decision in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chanda Koley and Ors.,, 2024 INSC 314 has held that delay and latches is one of the factors which should be borne in mind by the High Court while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, such discretion is to be exercised with care and cation. The delay may be condoned if the petitioner is able to justify the same. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted below, for reference:

“9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have