207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21909-2025(O&M)

Date of Decision: 16.04.2026 HARBHAJAN SINGH ....Petitioner(s)

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

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Yogesh Vashista, 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 quashing of the impugned order dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby the application filed by the petitioner for arms licence under the Heirloom Policy has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner namely, Jarnail Singh was holding an arms licence. He however passed away and thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority for issuance of an arms licence to the petitioner under the Heirloom Policy as a legal heir of the original licencee, who was his father. The respondents did not grant him the licence and simply refused the same without passing any speaking order and thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexure P-1 dated 26.03.2025 by directing that respondent No.2 will take a fresh decision and pass a reasoned order within three months from the date of the order. He submitted that the respondents passed Annexure P-2 dated 13.05.2025, which is the impugned in the present petition and this order was passed by the District Magistrate, Karnal by observing that there is no necessity to grant an arms license because the petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer and he had sufficient security when he is on duty. He further submitted that the aforesaid order cannot be considered to be a reasoned order in view of the fact that once the petitioner had filed an application for the grant of an arms licence under the Heirloom Policy, then the provisions of Rule 25 of the Arms Rules were required to be complied with and the procedure contained therein was required to be adhered to. He also submitted that a person who applies under the Heirloom Policy as a legal heir is not treated at par with any other individual who does not apply as a legal heir because separate procedure has been provided under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, which was neither referred to nor adhered to by the Licensing Authority and therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the aforesaid order (Annexure P-2), even though there was a provision for appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act because the order itself is cryptic and liable to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner had filed an application under the Hairloom Policy and his case was required to have been considered under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules but the same has not been referred to in the aforesaid order and therefore, he is not able to controvert the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 25 of the Arms Rules was not even considered by the Licensing Authority.

4. Learned State counsel submitted that however in the reply filed by the State, it has been stated that the petitioner did not require any arms licence because he was working as an Executive Engineer and whenever he was on duty, then sufficient security was provided to him and therefore his application was rejected.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. This is a second round of litigation filed by the petitioner. Earlier, when his application was rejected by simply refusing to grant him a licence, he challenged the action of the respondents and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexure P-1 disposed of the petition by directing the Licensing Authroity to take