Ajay Singla vs State Of Haryana And Others

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J

CM-11967-CWP-2025

Prayer in this application is for placing on record the translated copies of Annexure P-4 to Annexure P-6.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Annexure P-4 to Annexure P-6 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

CWP-21375-2025

The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the order dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure P-4), vide which the request of the petitioner for renewal of his arms licence has been declined and the order dated 05.06.2024 (Annexure P-6), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed with a further prayer to direct the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for renewal of his arms licence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed an application for renewal of his arms licence before the licensing authority after expiry of the said licence and the same was dismissed by the licensing authority. He further submitted that thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, wherein he specifically mentioned the grounds as to why he could not deposit the arms after the expiry of the licence but the same have not been considered by the appellate authority while deciding the appeal. He further submitted that when the petitioner filed the appeal, the appellate authority was duty bound to consider the grounds and the reasons mentioned therein and thereafter, to form an opinion in accordance with law but the appellate authority has not even discussed the aforesaid grounds and has simply stated that the petitioner has violated the Arms Rules. He also submitted that it is the prerogative of the appellate authority to consider the grounds taken in accordance with law but the appellate authority was bound to record the reasons for the same, which have not been recorded and therefore, the appellate order (Annexure P-6) may be set aside.

At this stage, Mr. Udit Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana could not controvert the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate order (Annexure P-6) has been passed without assigning any reasons pertaining to the grounds taken in the appeal.

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the appellate order dated 05.06.2024 (Annexure P-6), this Court is of the considered view that although it is the discretion of the appellate authority to either allow or dismiss the appeal but the same ought to be backed by reasons after considering the grounds taken by the petitioner in the appeal. Merely mentioning that the petitioner has violated the Arms Rules is not sufficient.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is partly allowed. The appellate order dated 05.06.2024 (Annexure P-6) is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner, Faridabad Division, Faridabad, to consider the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass a fresh and reasoned order after considering the grounds which have been taken by the petitioner in the appeal. Needless to say, the petitioner or his counsel shall be granted adequate opportunity of hearing before passing the order. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from today.