207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15395-2021 Date of decision: 17.02.2026 RAJESH ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Udit Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

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 order dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 has been dismissed and also the order dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the arms licence of the petitioner has been cancelled without affording him any opportunity of hearing and without serving him any show cause notice.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by way of the impugned order dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure P-6), the licensing authority i.e. the District Magistrate, Palwal has cancelled the arms licence of the petitioner by referring to certain pending FIRs registered against him and the report of the police. He further submitted that the aforesaid order has been passed under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act without recording any satisfaction as to whether the case of the petitioner falls within any of the grounds prescribed under the said provision or not. He further submitted that when the petitioner filed an appeal, the appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner, Faridabad Division, Faridabad, upheld the order passed by the licensing authority by observing that a person like the petitioner has the possibility of spreading unrest from arms licence, which does not constitute a valid ground for cancellation of arms licence under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act and therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority is totally unreasoned, cryptic and not supported by any law. He further submitted that it has been observed in both the aforesaid impugned orders that the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice, which is incorrect and rather the petitioner was never afforded any opportunity of hearing.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Udit Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana submitted that the licensing authority has passed the aforesaid impugned order under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act because there were FIRs pending against the petitioner, which is so reflected in the order itself and therefore, it was not in the interest of the public to allow the petitioner to continue holding the arms licence and in this way, the licensing authority has rightly cancelled the licence of the petitioner. He further submitted that when an appeal was filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority observed in the operative part of the order that five criminal cases are pending against him, which are under consideration at Delhi and as five cases are pending against the petitioner, he does not fall in the category of peace loving person and therefore, in order to prevent any unrest being caused due to the aforesaid licence, the appellate authority has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused both the impugned orders passed by the licensing authority as well as the appellate authority.

5. A perusal of the order passed by the licensing authority, whereby the licence of the petitioner was cancelled would show that the powers have been exercised by the licensing authority, who was the District Magistrate, Palwal, by referring to various FIRs pending against the petitioner. A perusal of the order would further show that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but as per the order, he failed to appear and that also constituted one of the grounds for cancellation of his arms licence. A perusal of the order passed by the licensing authority would also show that