IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-32810-2025 Date of decision: 06.11.2025 NAWAB HUSSAIN ...Petitioner(s)

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

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

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

1. The present is a third petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 15.07.2021 (Annexure P-12), vide which the arms licence of the petitioner was suspended and order dated 13.10.2021 (Annexure P-13), vide which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, with a further prayer to direct the licensing authority to renew the arms licence of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the petitioner was involved in four FIRs, out of which one FIR was pertaining to the Arms Act but later on the provisions of Arms Act were deleted qua the petitioner. He further submitted that so far as the remaining three FIRs are concerned, no role was attributable to the petitioner and otherwise also by way of the impugned order dated 15.07.2021 (Annexure P-12) passed by the licensing authority, the arms licence of the petitioner has been suspended to await the decision of the learned trial Court. He further submitted that about four years have elapsed and there is no decision of the learned trial Court but in the meantime, an urgency has arisen as the petitioner, who is a State-level wrestler, is facing threats to his safety for various reasons and therefore, requires a firearm for self-defence. He also submitted that two of the co-mates of the petitioner were killed and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, although the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2021 (Annexure P-13), but at the same time, about four years have elapsed and the trial is still pending and it is a settled law that mere pendency of an FIR does not constitute a ground for non-

renewal or non-grant of licence under the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that his limited prayer may be considered by this Court to the extent that in case the petitioner files a fresh application by giving fresh grounds and taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the same may be considered and an appropriate order may be passed in accordance with law by the licensing authority, without taking into consideration the earlier order passed as the effect of that order was limited to suspension only.

4. On the other hand, Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab submitted that considering the aforesaid limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the petitioner files a fresh application due to any changed circumstances, the same may be considered in accordance with law, without considering the earlier two orders, which have been impugned in the present case and an appropriate order may be passed in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner or his counsel, she has no objection with regard to the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned State counsel, he does not wish to press the present petition, at this stage, and prays for withdrawal of the same. He submitted that however, some time frame work may be fixed by this Court for disposal of the application, in case any application is filed by the petitioner to the concerned licensing authority.

6. Dismissed as withdrawn, at this stage. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to move any appropriate application for renewal of arms licence and in case such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law and without considering the earlier two orders, which have been impugned in the present case. This Court is further of the view that considering the