209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3536-2025(O&M)

Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 RAHUL SHEORAN ....Petitioner(s)

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

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

Mr. Udit Garg, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order dated 28.11.2022 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the arms licence of the petitioner has been cancelled and order dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.11.2022 (Annexure P-7) has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was having an arms licence but by way of the impugned order (Annexure P-7) passed by the District Magistrate, Karnal, the same has been cancelled. While referring to the aforesaid order, he submitted that there is no doubt that a number of FIRs are pending against the petitioner and in some of them even challan has been presented but that itself cannot become a ground for cancellation of the arms licence. He submitted that although there are disputes between the petitioner and a broadcasting company and there is another conflict between the petitioner and his wife but the same itself cannot become a ground for cancellation of the arms licence and therefore, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside. He also submitted that when the petitioner filed an appeal, the Appellate Authority also dismissed the same vide Annexuere P-10 without passing any speaking order, which is also liable to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Udit Garg, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has submitted that the order passed by the District Magistrate, Karnal is a well reasoned speaking order, wherein he has recorded his satisfaction that the possession of the arms licence by the petitioner would cause danger to public peace and security and it is not in the public interest for the petitioner to hold arms licence. He submitted that the parameters so contained under Section 17(3)(a) and (b) of the Arms Act are satisfied and therefore, no fault can be found in the aforesaid order passed by the District Magistrate, Karnal.

4. Learned State counsel further submitted while referring to the order passed by the Appellate Authority that it is evident from a perusal of the aforesaid order that the petitioner did not care to appear before the Appellate Authority for repeated number of occasions and this fact has also been noted by the Appellate Authority and thereafter, the Appellate Authority had applied its mind on the basis of the facts and circumstances and came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the petitioner and therefore, the same has been dismissed. He has prayed for the dismissal of the present petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused both the impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate, Karnal and the Divisional Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal, who is the Appellate Authority.

6. A perusal of the order dated 28.11.2022 (Annexure P-7) passed by the District Magistrate, Karnal would show that the report of the Superintendent of Police, Karnal based upon various FIRs against the petitioner has been noted down therein and thereafter, it was observed by the District Magistrate, Karnal that after giving personal hearing to the petitioner, he came to the conclusion that the petitioner can misuse his arms at any time and there is a possibility of any unpleasant incident which cannot be ignored and thereafter, he recorded his satisfaction that there exists a danger to public peace and security and that it is not in public