IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:12.11.2025 Buta Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. S.S.Salar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shruti, Addl. A.G. Punjab *****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 21.04.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned District Magistrate, Sangrur, whereby the Firearms Licence of the petitioner was cancelled and order dated 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was holding a valid arms licence for three arms/weapons. Thereafter the Government of India issued a notification dated 13.12.2019 and as per the aforesaid notification the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 was amended and it was so provided that a person cannot hold more than two fire arms. It was further stipulated that any person possessing more than two firearms shall deposit the excess firearms within a period of 90 days. He submitted that, as per the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Sangrur, it is clear that the aforesaid amendment dated 13.12.2019 was published in the newspapers on 28.02.2020 and the stipulated period of 90 days was to expire on 12.03.2020 and only a few days were left for the expiry of the aforesaid period. He further submitted that be that as it may, the petitioner is an illiterate person residing in the fields and is in requirement of the arms for his safety. He further submitted that after issuance of the aforesaid notification, a notice was served upon the petitioner and when he came to know about the same, he voluntarily deposited all three of his firearms even before the date fixed for appearance in response to the show cause notice and in this way, the petitioner had deposited all his firearms on 13.10.2021. He also submitted that, be that as it may, although the petitioner had deposited the firearms after the expiry of 90 days, at the most, learned District Magistrate ought to have considered cancellation of lincence only for those firearms which were in excess of two and not with respect to all the three firearms, unless it was shown that there was some apprehension on the part of District Magistrate or the police that the petitioner was misusing the weapons/arms, or that any of the conditions contained in Section 17 of the Arms Act for cancellation of the licence were satisfied. However, learned District Magistrate, merely on the basis of the aforesaid reason, cancelled the licence for all the three firearms, which has caused prejudice to the petitioner.

3. He also submitted that as per the operative part of the order passed by learned District Magistrate, Sangrur, licence for all the firearms of the petitioner has been cancelled under Section 17(3)(a) and (d) of the Arms Act, 1959, whereas the same could not have been done by learned District Magistrate because none of the aforesaid provisions of Section 17(3) are attracted in the present case. He submitted that Clause (a) would apply only when the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act from acquiring, having in his possession, or carrying any arms, or is for any reason unfit for a licence. Whereas, so far as two firearms are concerned, the petitioner was not prohibited by any provision of law from retaining the same; it was only with regard to one extra firearm that learned District Magistrate could have ordered cancellation of licence. Moreover, no reason has been assigned by learned District Magistrate to hold that the petitioner was unfit for holding the licence, and therefore, the parameters and ingredients of Claus