207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-389-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision:10.11.2025 Brijmohan Sharma ...Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana and Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Ms. Ishita Arora, Advocate, for Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

****

J ASGURPREET 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 the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.2 vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and order dated 02.09.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the arms licence of the petitioner was refused to be renewed and was cancelled, with a further prayer to direct the respondents to provisionally restore and renew the arms licence of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that both the impugned orders which have been passed by the licensing authority as well as the appellate authority are liable to be set aside. While elaborating her arguments, she submitted that when the petitioner applied for renewal of his arms licence, which was valid only till 07.02.2021, the same was cancelled and not renewed vide impugned order dated 02.09.2021 (Annexure P-6) by the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad on the ground that there are 2 FIRs registered against the petitioner, out of which one FIR is under Section 420 IPC and another FIR under Section 406, 506, 34 IPC but in none of the FIRs, there was involvement of any arms. She further submitted that a perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-6) would show that it only refers to a report submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Sector-7, Faridabad wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner was involved in the aforesaid two FIRs but there was no report pertaining to any apprehension that the petitioner will misuse the arms licence. She submitted that it is a settled law that mere pendency of an FIR and that too under Section 420 IPC or Sections 406, 506, 34 IPC itself cannot become a ground for cancellation or non-renewal of licence and satisfaction has to be recorded by the concerned authorities that there is an apprehension that the petitioner may misuse the licence, which did not find mention in the impugned order (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad and otherwise also, the aforesaid order is totally a non-speaking order and is therefore, liable to be set aside.

3. She further submitted that so far as the appellate order dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Commissioner, Faridabad Division, Faridabad, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed is concerned, the same is also a non-speaking order and mere pendency of an FIR would not become a ground for refusal to renew the licence as the same does not find mention in any of the grounds under the Arms Act. While further referring to the aforesaid order passed by the appellate authority, she submitted that in the operative part of the order it has been concluded that the arms licensing authority while discharging its responsibilities under the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, has passed an appropriate order and it has been mentioned that the petitioner has not been able to present any new evidence or argument. She further submitted that the aforesaid order is therefore, a non-speaking and cryptic order and the cancellation/non-renewal of arms licence was on non-existent grounds because mere pendency of an FIR, especially under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 34 IPC is no ground for non- renewal of arms licence and satisfaction with regard to any threat etc. has to be recorded.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana has submitted that he ca