Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Chander vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 13 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050986
CWP-22346-2019 2023:PHHC:050986 -1-
206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-22436-2019
Date of decision: 13th April, 2023
Jagdish Chander
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Present: Mr. Gursimran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, AAG, Haryana.
****
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (Oral):
1. This writ petition in the nature of Certiorari is filed seeking
quashing of orders dated 26th February, 2019 and 27th November, 2018
cancelling the arms licence of the petitioner and dismissing the appeal
respectively.
2. The brief facts are that petitioner held a arms licence bearing
No. 495-X-DM-HSR and it was valid till 3rd October, 2012. An application
was made on 1st October, 2012 for renewal of the arms licence.
Considering the involvement of the petitioner in FIR No. 81, dated 20th
February, 1985, under Section 160 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered
at Police Station City Hisar and in FIR No. 6, dated 2nd January, 2012,
under Sections 307 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section
25 of Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act'), the licence was cancelled. The
appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 12th December, 2015, hence
the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050986
CWP-22346-2019 2023:PHHC:050986 -2-
acquitted in case of FIR No. 6. The contention is that some of the
observations in the acquittal judgment cannot be read in isolation. The
argument is that order cancelling the licence is non speaking.
4. Learned State counsel defends the impugned orders.
5. Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 ( for short 'the Act') deals
with suspension or revocation of licence.
'17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.
(1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions
subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as
have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence-
holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such
time as may be specified in the notice.
(2) The licensing authority may, on the application of
the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except
such of them as have been prescribed.
(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing
suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence
(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the
licence is 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 is of unsound mind,
or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or
(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the
security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or
revoke the licence; or
(c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material
information or on the basis of wrong information provided by
the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at
the time of applying for it; or
(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been
contravened; or
(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a
notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver up the
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050986
CWP-22346-2019 2023:PHHC:050986 -3-
licence.
(4) The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the
application of the holder thereof.
(5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a
licence under sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a
licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons
therefore and furnish to the holder of the licence 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. Licensing authority under Section 17 (1) may vary the
conditions on which the licence was granted except the prescribed
conditions and for doing so notice can be issued to the licence holder to
deliver up the licence within the stipulated time. As per sub-section (2) of
Section 17 of the Act, the conditions of the licence can be varied on
application from the licence holder.
7. Sub-section (3) stipulates eventualities in Clauses (a) to (e) for
suspending or revoking the licence.
(a) If there is prohibition under this Act or any other law for
acquiring or possessing the arms and ammunition or licence holder is
of unsound mind or unfit for any other reason.
(b) If it is necessary for security of public peace or public safety.
(c) Where licence was obtained by suppression of material
information or if information provided was wrong.
(d) For contravention of the conditions of licence.
(e) Failure to comply with the notice under Section 17(1) of the Act.
8. Under sub section 4 licence can be revoked on application of
the licence holder. Sub-section (5) makes it obligatory for the licensing
authority to record reasons in writing while varying the conditions of
suspending or revoking the licence. The reasons are to be furnished to
licence holder on demand, the exception being in case licensing authority
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050986
CWP-22346-2019 2023:PHHC:050986 -4-
is of opinion that it will not be in public interest to furnish such reasons.
9. Section 17(3) (b) of the Act bestows the wide power on the
licensing authority for varying the terms and conditions, revoking or
cancelling the licence. The requirement is of authority being satisfied that
grant or renewal of licence would not be against the public security, public
peace or public safety. There cannot be a quarrel on the proposition that
this discretion has to be exercised judiciously.
10. The law is well settled that conclusion arrived at by quasi
judicial authority must be supported by reasons and these should be
communicated to the affected parties. The Supreme Court in M/ s Kranti
Associates Pvt. Ltd. & another v. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and
others, 2010(9) SCC 496, after considering the law on the issue summed
up as under:
51. Summarising the above discussion, this Court
holds:
a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record
reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in
support of its conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve
the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be
done it must also appear to be done as well.
d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid
restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and
quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised
by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by
disregarding extraneous considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component of a decision making process as observing
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050986
CWP-22346-2019 2023:PHHC:050986 -5-
principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and
even by administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by
superior Courts.
h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed
to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually
the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the
principle that reason is the soul of justice.
i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days
can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver
them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is
to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been
objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the
litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid
enough about his/her decision making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to
the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear
and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons'
is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine
qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers.
Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges
and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them
subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of
Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).
n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates
from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the
said requirement is now virtually a component of human
rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence.
See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v.
University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050986
CWP-22346-2019 2023:PHHC:050986 -6-
referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human
Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must
be given for judicial decisions".
o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a
vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the
decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due
Process".
11. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner was acquitted in FIR
No.6 and the conviction in FIR No. 81 was much prior to issuance of
licence. In consonance of Section 17(5) of the Act no reasons were
recorded for cancelling the licence. Albeit, reliance was placed on Section
17(3) (b) for cancelling the licence but the basis for arriving at the
conclusion that there are chances of misuse of weapon was mentioned.
Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside. The petition is disposed
of by remitting the matter to respondent No.3 to consider it afresh, in
accordance with law.
[AVNEESH JHINGAN]
JUDGE
13th April, 2023
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050986
6 of 6
