CWP-9891-2026 -1- 103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-9891-2026 Date of Decision : 09.07.2026 SUNHARA .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ANDANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Salinder Kumar Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Addl. AG, Haryana. KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral) 1. Through the instant petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.12.2020 (Annexure P-9), passed by the District Magistrate, Sonipat (respondent no.3) and the order dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure P-16), passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Haryana (respondent no.2). 2. In the instant matter, the petitioner initially submitted an application before the District Magistrate (respondent No.3) seeking extension of the area validity of his arms licence. Upon verification of the relevant facts and circumstances, the police did not recommend the said request. On the basis of the police report, the District Magistrate, vide the DHARAM VIR 2026.07.15 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9891-2026 -2- impugned order dated 09.12.2020, consigned the petitioner's application to the record room. 3. Instead of availing the statutory remedy of appeal prescribed under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner opted to submit various representations, and has also preferred an appeal before the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Haryana, who was not the competent Appellate Authority under the ibid Act. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP-5436- 2025, which was disposed of with a direction to the Additional Chief Secretary to decide the representation of the petitioner. Probably, at the time of issuing the said direction, the co-ordinate bench of this Court may not have examined, as to whether, the Additional Chief Secretary was the competent Appellate Authority under the Arms Act or not. Nonetheless, the Additional Chief Secretary concerned, in compliance to the directions issued to the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 11.11.2025 decided the representation of the petitioner and come to conclusion that the submission made by the petitioner were totally bereft of any merit. 4. At this juncture, it is essential to note that the initially the application made by the petitioner before the Licensing Authority concerned, was to extend the area of licence, whereas, before the Additional Chief Secretary, he made addition to his prayer by seeking at least 16 arm licences for his relatives who are residing in four different Districts, on account of perceived threat to their safety. The Additional Chief Secretary, after conduting a thorough enquiry found that petitioner's DHARAM VIR 2026.07.15 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9891-2026 -3- two relatives, i.e. son and son-in-law, have already been granted arm licences in accordance with the provisions of Arms Act, 1959 and the petitioner himself has also been provided adequate security, i.e two armed security personnel are deployed round the clock. 5. At the outset, this Court has put a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether all the 16 persons, for whom the petitioner seeks grant of arms licences, had ever submitted applications before their respective District Magistrates concerned, and further, whether, they had undergone the requisite arms training, and possess a valid arms training certificates, to which the learned counsel fairly answered in negative, and submitted that none of the said 16 persons had ever applied for grant of an arms licence before the Licensing Authority concerned. 6. This Court finds that the petitioner has unnecessarily filed multiple representations and proceedings, without ensuring compliance with the basic statutory requirements governing the grant of arms licences. In the absence of any application by the concerned persons before the competent authority, the question of directing grant of arms licences in their favour does not arise. Consequently, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or error in the impugned order, whereby, the petitioner's prayer for grant of arms licences to his close relatives was declined. DHARAM VIR 2026.07.15 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9891-2026 -4- 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner was also unable to satisfy this Court, as to how the petitioner was entitled, in law or on facts, for extension/increase the jurisdiction of his own arms licence. 8. Although this Court was inclined to impose exemplary cost upon the petitioner for pursuing misconceived proceedings and seeking reliefs dehors the statutory provisions, but refrains itself from doing so. 9. Accordingly, the instant application is, hereby dismissed. 10. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (KULDEEP TIWARI) July 09, 2026 JUDGE dharamvir Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No DHARAM VIR 2026.07.15 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document