IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 101 CWP-25926-2023 Date of Decision : July 07, 2026 RAJIV SINGLA -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Shubham Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the orders dated 14.11.2022 and 07.02.2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner, respectively, whereby the application of the petitioner seeking grant of an arms licence was rejected and the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said rejection order was also dismissed. 2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner submitted an application seeking grant of an arms licence, upon which the police verification report was found to be favourable. However, the licensing authority, in exercise of the discretion vested in it under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arms Act”) and the Arms Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arms Rules”), rejected the petitioner’s application vide order dated 14.11.2022, on the ground that neither any DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.09 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-25926-2023 2 concrete reasons supporting issuance of a No-Objection Certificate for an arms licence had been assigned by the local police, nor was there any established danger or threat perception to the petitioner, as contemplated under sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Arms Rules and sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph (ii) of letter No. V-11016/16/2019/Arms dated 31.03.2010. Aggrieved by the rejection of his application, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, which also came to be dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 07.02.2023. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 14.11.2022, passed by the licensing authority, is contrary to the provisions of Section 13 of the Arms Act and Rule 12(3) of the Arms Rules. It is submitted that although Section 14 of the Arms Act empowers the licensing authority to refuse grant of an arms licence on the grounds specified therein, the licensing authority, without taking into consideration the fact that the police had issued a No-Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner, rejected the petitioner’s application merely on the ground that there was no threat perception to the petitioner and no specific reasons had been assigned by the local police. It is, thus, contended that the reasons assigned by the licensing authority for declining the grant of an arms licence to the petitioner are unsustainable in law and do not withstand judicial scrutiny. 4. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, finds no merit therein. 5. Section 14 of the Arms Act enumerates the circumstances in DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.09 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-25926-2023 3 which the licensing authority can refuse grant of an arms licence. The same reads as under:- “14. Refusal of licences.―(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant― (a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition; (b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,― (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe— (1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition; or (2) to be of unsound mind; or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or (ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. (2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property. (3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.” 6. A perusal of sub-section (1)(b)(i) of Section 14 of the Arms Act makes it evident that the licensing authority is empowered to refuse grant of an arms licence where it has reason to believe that the applicant is either prohibited by the Arms Act or any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, possessing or carrying any arms or ammunition; or is of unsound mind; or is, for any other reason, unfit to hold a licence under the said Act. DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.09 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-25926-2023 4 7. At this stage, sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Arms Rules also assumes significance and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:- “(3) For grant of a license for the permissible arms or ammunition specified in category III in Schedule I, and without prejudice to the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 13, the licensing authority, based on the police report and on his own assessment, may consider the applications of- (a) any person who by the very nature of his business, profession, job or otherwise has genuine requirement to protect his life and/or property; or (b) any dedicated sports person being active member for the last two years, of a shooting club or a rifle association, licensed under these rules and who wants to pursue sport shooting for target practice in a structured learning process; or (c) any person in service or having served in the Defence Forces, Central Armed Police Forces or the State Police Force and has genuine requirement to protect his life and/or property.” 8. Sub-rule (3)(a) of Rule 12 of the Arms Rules empowers the licensing authority to independently assess the application for grant of an arms licence, keeping in view the nature of the applicant’s business, profession, job, and to determine whether the applicant has a genuine requirement for protection of his life and/or property. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the licensing authority, while exercising the discretion and powers vested in it under Rule 12(3) of the Arms Rules and Section 14 of the Arms Act, was competent to undertake an independent assessment regarding the genuineness of the petitioner’s requirement for protection of his life and property, notwithstanding the police report. The grant of a No-Objection Certificate by the police does not, by itself, create a right in favour of the petitioner for DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.09 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-25926-2023 5 issuance of an arms licence. Accordingly, after undertaking such assessment and considering the relevant factors, the licensing authority rejected the petitioner’s application for grant of an arms licence. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the well-reasoned order passed by the licensing authority. 10. Consequently, the instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. (KULDEEP TIWARI) July 07, 2026 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.09 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment