CWP-2316 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Randhir Singh State of Haryana and CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner order dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure P Magistrate Arms Licence was cancelled. Furt by the Divisional Commissioner whereby, an appeal preferred against the abovesaid order met the same fate, and was dismissed 2. impugned orders, submits that the reasons to decline the request of the petitioner could not pass the test of legality, as the requirement prescribed under Section 14 of the Arms Ac met out. He further submits that Superintendent of Police concerned had recorded its satisfaction/No Objection for renewal of 2316-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Randhir Singh Versus Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Dr. Neha Awasthi, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) By way of instant writ petition, as 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner order dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure P Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner-respondent No.3, vide which, his icence was cancelled. Further, an order dated 23.07.2025, passed by the Divisional Commissioner-respondents No.2, is also assailed, whereby, an appeal preferred against the abovesaid order met the same was dismissed Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring impugned orders, submits that the reasons to decline the request of the petitioner could not pass the test of legality, as the requirement prescribed under Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act’) met out. He further submits that Superintendent of Police concerned had recorded its satisfaction/No Objection for renewal of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-2316-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.07.2026 ….Petitioner ….Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Dr. Neha Awasthi, Addl. A.G., Haryana. By way of instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure P-7), passed by the District respondent No.3, vide which, his her, an order dated 23.07.2025, passed respondents No.2, is also assailed, whereby, an appeal preferred against the abovesaid order met the same Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the impugned orders, submits that the reasons to decline the request of the petitioner could not pass the test of legality, as the requirement prescribed (for short, ‘the Act’), was never met out. He further submits that Superintendent of Police concerned had recorded its satisfaction/No Objection for renewal of the Arms Licence, 2026 ….Petitioner s cast under Article seeks quashing of the 7), passed by the District respondent No.3, vide which, his her, an order dated 23.07.2025, passed respondents No.2, is also assailed, whereby, an appeal preferred against the abovesaid order met the same to the impugned orders, submits that the reasons to decline the request of the petitioner could not pass the test of legality, as the requirement prescribed , was never met out. He further submits that Superintendent of Police concerned had , AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.06 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-2316 as issued petitioner had deposited his we & Ammunition Dealers, and is living peacefully, there is no threat to his life cancelled, vide order dated 09.02.2024. Magistrate did not call for a report from the Superintendent of Police as regards any founded only on conjectures and surmises. 3. petitioner was involved in two criminal cases. Further, she submits that he earned acquittal in those cases, but doubt. In such a situation, the petitioner having criminal antecedent was found unfit for renewal of Arms Licence. 4. also perused the record. 5. glance of Section 14 of the Act: section 13, t licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition; authority has reason to believe being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition; or 2316-2026 (O&M) -2- as issued to the petitioner. However, merely on the ground that the petitioner had deposited his weapon with M/s. Saharan Gun House Arms & Ammunition Dealers, and is living peacefully, there is no threat to his life or personal safety, his Arms Licence was cancelled, vide order dated 09.02.2024. trate did not call for a report from the Superintendent of Police as any threat perception to the petitioner. Therefore, the orders are founded only on conjectures and surmises. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the er was involved in two criminal cases. Further, she submits that he earned acquittal in those cases, but solely on doubt. In such a situation, the petitioner having criminal antecedent was fit for renewal of Arms Licence. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and has also perused the record. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to have a glance of Section 14 of the Act:- “14. Refusal of licences.―(1) 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; to the petitioner. However, merely on the ground that the apon with M/s. Saharan Gun House Arms & Ammunition Dealers, and is living peacefully, thereby, presuming that or personal safety, his Arms Licence was cancelled, vide order dated 09.02.2024. He asserts that the District trate did not call for a report from the Superintendent of Police as threat perception to the petitioner. Therefore, the orders are founded only on conjectures and surmises. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the er was involved in two criminal cases. Further, she submits that solely on account of benefit of doubt. In such a situation, the petitioner having criminal antecedent was This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and has Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to have a .―(1) Notwithstanding anything in he 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 (b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,― (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing (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 (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or to the petitioner. However, merely on the ground that the apon with M/s. Saharan Gun House Arms thereby, presuming that or personal safety, his Arms Licence was He asserts that the District trate did not call for a report from the Superintendent of Police as threat perception to the petitioner. Therefore, the orders are On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the er was involved in two criminal cases. Further, she submits that account of benefit of doubt. In such a situation, the petitioner having criminal antecedent was This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and has Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to have a Notwithstanding anything in (a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing (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 AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.06 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-2316 security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. to any person merely on the ground tha possess sufficient property. any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the sa any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement. 6. concerned to refuse the grant of licence, where the app unfit. However, in the matter at hand, the authority had miserably failed to assign any reason, whatsoever, that the petitioner is unfit for renewal/grant of Arms Licence. Rather, the first reason setforth acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt. Secondly, he had deposited his weapon with the abovesaid Gun any threat perception so far. 7. be sufficient to Superintendent of Police had granted No Objection to the petitioner this regard with the terms and conditions Arms Licence. So far as the observation that petitioner is leading his life in a peaceful manner, an is concerned, the authorities, w 2316-2026 (O&M) -3- (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 tha 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 sa any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement. A bare perusal of Section 14(1)( concerned to refuse the grant of licence, where the app unfit. However, in the matter at hand, the authority had miserably failed to assign any reason, whatsoever, which could even remotely indicate the petitioner is unfit for renewal/grant of Arms Licence. Rather, the first reason setforth in the impugned order is that the petitioner was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt. Secondly, he had deposited his weapon with the abovesaid Gun house, and thirdly, he did not perceive any threat perception so far. Ex facie, the first two reasons, in any case, can be sufficient to decline the request for renewal of Arms Licence, as the Superintendent of Police had granted No Objection to the petitioner this regard. Further, the petitioner had deposited his arms, in compliance the terms and conditions, as prescribed at the time of issuance of Arms Licence. So far as the observation that petitioner is leading his life peaceful manner, and no threat to his person is concerned, the authorities, without carrying out the necessary exercise, (ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such (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 (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.” A bare perusal of Section 14(1)(3) empowers the authorities concerned to refuse the grant of licence, where the applicant is found unfit. However, in the matter at hand, the authority had miserably failed which could even remotely indicate the petitioner is unfit for renewal/grant of Arms Licence. Rather, the in the impugned order is that the petitioner was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt. Secondly, he had deposited his house, and thirdly, he did not perceive sons, in any case, cannot be said to the request for renewal of Arms Licence, as the Superintendent of Police had granted No Objection to the petitioner, in . Further, the petitioner had deposited his arms, in compliance as prescribed at the time of issuance of Arms Licence. So far as the observation that petitioner is leading his life no threat to his personal safety was perceived ithout carrying out the necessary exercise, (ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such (2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence t such person does not own or (3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and me unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the ) empowers the authorities licant is found unfit. However, in the matter at hand, the authority had miserably failed which could even remotely indicate the petitioner is unfit for renewal/grant of Arms Licence. Rather, the in the impugned order is that the petitioner was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt. Secondly, he had deposited his house, and thirdly, he did not perceive not be said to the request for renewal of Arms Licence, as the , in . Further, the petitioner had deposited his arms, in compliance as prescribed at the time of issuance of Arms Licence. So far as the observation that petitioner is leading his life l safety was perceived ithout carrying out the necessary exercise, AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.06 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-2316 in this regard, speculatively arrived at such a conclusion. In fact, the authorities were obliged to evaluate the threat perception, if any, to the petitioner by calling a Superintendent of Police concerned that the impugned orders cannot withstand the test of judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are 8. Commissi the petitioner, and pass orders afresh, strictly in accordance with law, and, after evaluating the threat perception, if any, to the petitioner calling the necessary report months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order 02.07.2026 Ak Sharma 2316-2026 (O&M) -4- in this regard, speculatively arrived at such a conclusion. In fact, the authorities were obliged to evaluate the threat perception, if any, to the petitioner by calling a categoric report in this regard, from t Superintendent of Police concerned. In such circumstances, it appears that the impugned orders were passed in a cursory manner, and withstand the test of judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are set aside. As a result, the District Magistrate ioner, Kurukshetra, is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner, and pass orders afresh, strictly in accordance with law, , after evaluating the threat perception, if any, to the petitioner calling the necessary report from the quarter concerned months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order .07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable in this regard, speculatively arrived at such a conclusion. In fact, the authorities were obliged to evaluate the threat perception, if any, to the report in this regard, from the . In such circumstances, it appears re passed in a cursory manner, and thus, withstand the test of judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, both the lt, the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy oner, Kurukshetra, is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner, and pass orders afresh, strictly in accordance with law, , after evaluating the threat perception, if any, to the petitioner by from the quarter concerned, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes Yes/No in this regard, speculatively arrived at such a conclusion. In fact, the authorities were obliged to evaluate the threat perception, if any, to the he . In such circumstances, it appears thus, withstand the test of judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, both the Deputy oner, Kurukshetra, is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner, and pass orders afresh, strictly in accordance with law, by , within three AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.06 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document