HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.2781 of 2021 Aarif --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sachin Kr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner through V.C. Mr. R.C. Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Urgency application (IA/5/2025) is disposed. On the request of parties, matter is taken up today itself. 2. By means of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 12.10.2021 passed by respondent no.2 along with order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar (respondent no.3). 3. Facts in nutshell are that on the recommendation of SSP Haridwar on the basis of report of Inspector Kotwali Manglore, the case No.21 of 2017, State v. Aarif was registered on 26.11.2017. It was stated in the report that the petitioner has been issued Arms License No.2137/2013 and License No.01342-000-13117/13. On 01.10.2017 at about 9-9:30 PM, the petitioner had a dispute with one Azad Ali in which the petitioner brandishing his licenced firearm, fired in air and created ruckus. In respect of the above incident and looking to the situation of tension between both the parties, Challan under Sections 107 and 116(3) Cr.P.C. was made and report was submitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee. On the basis of enquiry report, the fact of creating commotion in the village by using air fire has been confirmed. Hence the recommendation to cancel the arms’ licence of the petitioner was made. 4. The petitioner was issued the show cause 1 notice. It was stated by him mainly that he did not use the firearm either directly or indirectly. No other case is registered against him in any Court. The report has been submitted on the basis of false statements and enmity. Hence prayer to quash the show cause notice was made. 5. The petitioner filed his written argument on 18.12.2018. The District Magistrate found that the petitioner illegally used the firearm by his licensed weapon which created the feeling of threat in the village and accordingly the licecnce was cancelled. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Garhwal Region at Dehradun who too rejected the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the District Magistrate on 12.10.2021. Hence this petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the material on record. 7. It is an admitted case of the parties that on 01.10.2017, petitioner had a dispute with one Azad Ali in which he brandished the firearm and opened the fire which was a licensed weapon. Although opportunity was given to him by issuing the show cause notice but he could not give any satisfactory reply for the same. By using the firearm, petitioner created the commotion and terror in the village due to which he was challaned u/s 107 and 116(3) Cr.P.C. On the basis of above, it appears that the SSP Haridwar rightly recommended for rejecting the arms licence of the petitioner which was rightly acted upon by the D.M. Haridwar. The Commissioner, Garhwal Region also rightly put his seal over the said order. 8. In such view of the matter, there is hardly any scope for interference. The petition fails and the same is dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.10.2025 Rdang 2