Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Joneja vs State Of Haryana Nd Others on 2 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043571
2024:PHHC:043571
CWP-4058-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(103)
CWP-4058-2024
Date of decision:- 02.04.2024
Ajay Joneja ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate, for the petitioner.
...
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has inter alia approached
this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order
dated 20.04.2023, Annexure P-6, as well as appellate order dated 05.07.2023,
Annexure P-8, passed by respondents No.3 and 2, respectively, whereby,
petitioner's application for renewal of Arms Licence has been rejected.
2. By placing reliance upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court
in Ram Kripal Singh Versus State of U.P. and others, 1987 All. LJ 1209,
counsel for the petitioner has contended that where an application for renewal
of Arms Licence is not made within the prescribed period and the Licensing
Authority is not satisfied with the reason offered explaining the delay,
application for renewal is to be treated as a fresh one.
3. Notice of motion.
4. On asking of the Court, Mr. Aman Bahri, Additional Advocate
General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He is not in a
position to cite any judgment to the contrary.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043571
2024:PHHC:043571
6. Petitioner has not been able to give any satisfactory reason for delay
of more than one year and 10 months in applying for renewal of licence for
fire-arm. The ground taken that he was under a wrong impression that the
licence was valid for a period of 5 years, is flimsy, and cannot be accepted.
Therefore, there is no infirmity in the orders under challenge.
7. Interpreting Sub Rule 4 of Rule 54 of the Arms Rules, 1962 (now
repealed), which is pari materia with Rule 24(5) of the Arms Rules, 2016,
Allahabad High Court in Ram Kripal Singh case (supra) has held as under:-
"6. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear beyond
doubt that normally renewal of the licence is to be granted by the
licensing authority, where the application for such renewal is made
within the prescribed period, subject to the conditions laid down in
the provisions of the Act and the Rules and that renewal can also be
granted even where there has been some delay on the part of the
applicant to apply for it if the delay in making the renewal
application is satisfactorily explained to the satisfaction of the
authorities by applicant therefore. These provisions also show that
where an application for renewal is not made within the prescribed
period and the licensing authority is not satisfied with the reason
offered for applying for renewal with delay, the application for
renewal is to be treated to be an application for a fresh licence. In
any case, the renewal of licence cannot be refused upon the mere
circumstance of delay in applying for it" (Emphasis added)
8. As has been observed by the Allahabad High Court, once the
Licensing Authority is not satisfied with the reason given for delay in applying
for renewal, application for renewal is to be treated as a fresh application for
issuance of licence. This Court is of the view that in view of the above
interpretation, petitioner's application, Annexure P-3, deserves to be considered
as a fresh one.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043571
2024:PHHC:043571
9. Accordingly, petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent
No.3, to treat application, Annexure P-3, as a fresh application, and to take
decision thereon in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and
Rules framed thereunder.
10. If there are any requirements for furnishing any additional document,
deposit of fee etc., respondent-authorities will be at liberty to call upon the
petitioner to furnish the same.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
02.04.2024
Pardeep
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
3 of 3
