IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-32393-2025 Date of decision: 03.11.2025 BALVINDER SINGH ...Petitioner(s)

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

1. The present 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of certiorari for quashing the order dated 04.06.2021 (Annexure P-3), whereby the arms licence of the petitioner has been revoked and order dated 20.08.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while typing Annexure P-4, the designation of the Divisional Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal, was incorrectly mentioned at the top. He submitted that the aforesaid was an inadvertent mistake and the incorrect designation may be struck off.

3. On the oral request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the designation so stated in the aforesaid Annexure P-4, is hereby struck off.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed an application before the licencing authority for renewal of his arms licence and vide order 04.06.2021 (Annexure P-3), the District Magistrate, Karnal, dismissed the said application on the ground that earlier the petitioner was involved in one case bearing FIR No.357 dated 16.10.2010, under Sections 148, 149, 285, 336, 506 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He further submitted that although the petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid case, but no such reasons have been provided in the aforesaid impugned order passed by the licensing authority as to why his arms licence has been refused.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal and the Divisional Commissioner also dismissed the said appeal, although by observing that the petitioner has since been acquitted but it was so observed in the operative part of the order that there is no error in the order passed by the District Magistrate, Karnal. He further submitted that in the aforesaid impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner also observed that the petitioner has been acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt and he has not produced any such evidence even before this Court to substantiate his plea and therefore, dismissed the appeal. He also submitted that the provisions of the Arms Act have not been followed by both the authorities below because as per the provision of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, even in case the licence was to be cancelled, then there has to be a satisfaction to be recorded by the authorities below as to how the same can be misused by the petitioner.

6. Notice of motion.

7. Mr. Udit Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State. He submitted that the Divisional Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal has dismissed the appeal on the ground that although the petitioner was acquitted in the aforesaid case but he was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt. He further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the settled proposition of law that some reasons have to be recorded with regard to the satisfaction of the licensing authority and the appellate authority for the cancellation of licence.

8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing both the impugned orders passed by the licensing authority and the appellate authority, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be allowed. When the authorities below i.e. the licensing authority and the appellate authority are to cancel or revoke the arms licence under Section 17 of the Arms Act, then the conditions contained under Section 17 of the Arms Act have to be satisfied. It was an admitt