Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhagwan Dass vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 March, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031814
2024:PHHC:031814
CWP-1672-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(104)
CWP-1672-2024
Date of decision:- 06.03.2024
Bhagwan Dass ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. L.K.Gollen, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
...
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
1. By way of instant writ petition, petitioner has approached this
Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India inter alia for
issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned rejection
order dated 12.04.2023, Annexure P-9, whereby, application for issuance
of Arms Licence, has been rejected by respondent No.3, as well as order
dated 10.10.2023, Annexure P-12, passed by respondent No.2, whereby,
appeal filed under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, has been declined.
2. Petitioner has averred that he is an eye witness to a double-
murder case and has been cited as a witness by the prosecution in criminal
trial in FIR No.590, dated 04.08.2022, Annexure P-1, registered for
offences under Sections 302, 307, 397, 450, 460, 323, 34, IPC, and
Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station City Hansi, District Hisar.
Accused are hard core criminals and have been named in some other
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031814
2024:PHHC:031814
criminal cases. Claiming that he is being intimidated, petitioner applied
for Arms Licence, vide application dated 13.12.2022, Annexure P-7, and
by report dated 01.03.2023, Annexure P-8, it was recommended that the
requisite licence be granted to him. However, his application has been
rejected by respondent No.3, by impugned order, Annexure P-9. Appeal
preferred by him has been dismissed by respondent No.2, vide order
Annexure P-12. Both these orders are under challenge in this petition.
3. Besides raising other arguments, counsel for the petitioner has
urged that the appellate order has been passed without assigning any
reason. He submits that despite the fact that the factual position was
brought to the notice of respondent No.2, the Appellate Authority has
failed to discuss it, while passing impugned order, Annexure P-12.
4. Notice of motion.
5. On asking of the Court, Mr. Aman Bahri, Additional Advocate
General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents.
State counsel has supported the orders passed by the Authorities.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the
parties as well as examined the documents appended with the paper book.
7. Effective portion of the impugned appellate order, Annexure P-
12, deserves to be noticed and is reproduced as under:-
"I have gone through the case file and perused the
impugned order carefully and have heard the arguments raised
by the parties and I have arrived at the conclusion that District
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031814
2024:PHHC:031814
Magistrate Bhiwani has rejected the application on the ground
of lack of justification, which is correct in my opinion. File be
consigned to record Room after compliance."
8. It is evident from the above reproduction that Appellate
Authority has not assigned any reason whatsoever in support of its
conclusion. Appellate Authority has simply endorsed the order passed by
respondent No.3, without even adverting to the arguments addressed by
the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is a Quasi Judicial Authority and it is an
essential requirement that orders passed by it are supported with reasons.
Appellate forum is required to independently examine the arguments
raised and decide them by passing a reasoned order, more so, if such
decision prejudicially affects the aggrieved party.
9. While remitting of matter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Versus Commissioner of Income Tax,
Mysore and another, (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 329, has observed
as under:-
"8. In addition, Questions (iii), (v) and (vii) as noted in the
High Court's judgment are concerned, need to be adjudicated
afresh. It is true that in an order of affirmation, repetition of
reasons elaborately may not be necessary. But even then the
arguments advanced, points urged have to be dealt with.
Reasons for affirmation have to be indicated, though in
appropriate cases they may be briefly stated.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031814
2024:PHHC:031814
9. Recording of reasons is a part of fair procedure.
Reasons are harbinger between the mind of maker of the
decision in the controversy and the decision or conclusion
arrived at. They substitute subjectivity with objectivity. As
observed in Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. V. Crabtree,
1974 ICR 120 (NIRC), failure to give reasons amounts to denial
of justice."
10. This Court is of the view that the impugned appellate order sans
any reasoning and cannot be sustained on this short ground.
11. For the afore-going reason, impugned order, Annexure P-12,
passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remitted to
respondent No.2, to decide it afresh by passing a reasoned order after
hearing the parties.
12. Petition is disposed of.
13. Parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner, Rohtak
Range, Rohtak, respondent No.2, on 04.04.2024, at 10.00 A.M.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
06.03.2024
Pardeep
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
4 of 4
