IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:03.02.2026 Birender ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. Anil Kumar Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, DAG, Haryana *****

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 impugned order dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure P- 6) passed by District Magistrate, Hisar and order dated 07.02.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was holding a valid arms licence, which was valid up to 08.09.2014. He had applied for renewal of the said licence, however, the same was rejected by the District Magistrate, Hisar, vide order dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure P-6), after which the matter was remanded to the District Magistrate, Hisar, by learned Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar.

3. While referring to Annexure P-6, learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the aforesaid order whereby the arms licence of the petitioner has not been renewed would show that neither any reason, has been assigned nor any material has been mentioned therein and that the order has been passed solely on the basis of recommendation made by the police. He submitted that the aforesaid cannot by itself become a ground for non-renewal of the arms licence, as it is the duty of the licensing authority/District Magistrate to apply its mind in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and the grounds on which renewal is refused must be reflected in the order. The mere fact that it has been recommended by the police is not, in itself, a valid ground for non-renewal of arms licence. He submitted that in this way, the aforesaid order is a totally non-speaking and cryptic order. Thereafter, the petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, who also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide Annexure P-7 dated 07.02.2023. While referring to the aforesaid order, he submitted that the petitioner was earlier involved in three different FIRs, in which provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 were also invoked, but in all the FIRs, the petitioner has been acquitted. It has been noted by the aforesaid appellate authority that the petitioner has been acquitted in all the FIR, however, without any cogent reason the appeal has been dismissed.

4. Learned counsel while further referring to the aforesaid order, submitted that it was observed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, that the petitioner had filed an application for renewal of the arms licence after a period of three years and five months, which is contrary to the record and is factually incorrect. In this regard, learned counsel referred to the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, vide letter dated 12.12.2024. A vernacular copy of the said information has been supplied to this Court. The aforesaid document in vernacular is taken on record as Mark ‘X’ and a copy thereof has been supplied to learned State counsel as well. He submitted that from the report itself, it is very clear that the petitioner had applied for renewal of the arms licence on 23.06.2014, which was even before the expiry of the arms licence scheduled to expire on 08.09.2014, and in this way, the petitioner had applied for renewal of the licence prior to its expiry. Whereas, the finding of the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, is that there was a delay of three years and five months in filing the application for renewal of the licence, which is contrary to the record itself; therefore, on this ground, the order passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, is liable to be set aside. He al