IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-2110-2026(O&M)

Date of Decision: 28.01.2026 SHASHI BHUSHAN ....Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Udit Garg, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the arms licence of the petitoiner has been cancelled, with a further prayer to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and to renew the arms licence of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the arms licence of the petitioner has been cancelled by the District Magistrate, Sirsa vide order dated 11.12.2025 under Section 17 of the Arms Act. He submitted that thereafter, an appeal has been filed vide Annexure P-4 before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar but no action has been taken by the Appellate Authority nor the said appeal has been decided. He submitted that the reason for cancellation of the arms licence was that after expiry of the arms licence of the petitioner, he did not get the licence renewed for six months and it was because of his illness that he could not get his licence renewed and he was also out of station because he is working as a Contractor of FCI.

3. At this stage, Mr. Udit Garg, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has submitted that he has sought specific instructions to the effect that no appeal has been received by the office of the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar. He submitted that against the order (Annexure P-3), which has been passed by the District Magistrate, a statutory remedy of appeal lies under Section 18 of the Arms Act but the same has not been availed by the petitioner and the petitioner has straightaway filed the present petition and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. A query was raised to learned counsel for the petitioner as to how and by what mode the appeal (Annexure P-4) was filed before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, to which he submitted that the same was sent by courier. On a further query being raised as to where is the mode of proof with regard to the same as nothing is clear from the present petition, to which he submitted that at present he does not have receipt of the courier. A document has been attached as Annexure P-4 purported to be an appeal dated 28.12.2025 and assumingly for the sake of arguments, if such an appeal was filed, the petitioner has rushed to this Court within a period of less than a month from the date of filing of such an appeal by stating that neither the appeal has been decided nor has been communicated by the Commissioner. In para No.8 of the writ petition it has been so stated by the petitioner that he has preferred an appeal but he has not received any communication. The writ petition is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner. However, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has so stated that no such appeal has been received by the office of the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar. Therefore, it appears that the averment made in the petition which is supported by an affidavit is false.

6. Under the Arms Act, there is a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Act, which the petitioner has not availed as of date and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. This Court is of the considered view that by filing the present petition, the precious time of the Court has been wasted.

7. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand).The petitioner is hereby directed to deposit the aforesaid cos