Punjab-Haryana High Court
Brahma Prakash vs State Of Haryana And Others on 16 March, 2026
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
CWP-11854-2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-11854-2023
BRAHMA PRAKASH
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. Brahma Prakash, Petitioner in person
(through hybrid mode)
Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl. AG, Haryana
Ms. Mansi, Advocate for respondent no. 5
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 23.01.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 16.03.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 16.03.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment and reason thereof.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J
Prayer
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked under articles
226/227 of Constitution Of India praying for quashing for impugned order
dated 23.02.2022 (Annexure P-2) and 17.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) whereby
grant of fresh arms license to the petitioner was rejected by Respondent No. 2
1 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:39:07 :::
CWP-11854-2023 -2-
and 3 respectively with a further prayer to direct Respondent No. 3 to issue
him a fresh arms license.
The Conspectus Of Facts
2. The petitioner is an advocate practising in Delhi/NCR who applied
for grant of a fresh arms licence on 15.07.2014 before the competent authority
at Faridabad for the purpose of self-defence. The said application was initially
rejected on 09.10.2015. Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division. The appellate authority,
vide order dated 08.12.2017, allowed the appeal and set aside the rejection
order, thereby directing reconsideration of the petitioner’s application.
3. Pursuant to the appellate order, the petitioner submitted a
representation dated 10.01.2018 along with a copy of the appellate order
requesting issuance of the licence. The matter was thereafter sent for
verification. After a detailed verification process conducted between January
2018 and July 2018 by the local police authorities, the Deputy Commissioner
of Police, Ballabhgarh, vide recommendation dated 11.07.2018, forwarded a
favourable report recommending grant of the arms licence to the petitioner.
The verification reports recorded that the petitioner was a person of good
conduct, had no criminal antecedents, and had applied for the licence for self-
defence in view of threats to his life.
4. Further antecedent verification was sought from the police
authorities at Varanasi, where the petitioner had earlier resided. The Varanasi
police authorities initially submitted reports and recommendations between
August 2019 and November 2019 supporting the petitioner’s case and
2 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:39:07 :::
CWP-11854-2023 -3-
recommending grant of the arms licence. However, subsequently, certain
contrary reports were submitted between 29.11.2019 and 03.12.2019, which
the petitioner alleges were false, fabricated and made under extraneous
influence and in collusion with his brother with whom the petitioner has
property disputes. On the basis of the said adverse and allegedly fabricated
reports, further verification was again conducted by the Faridabad police in
January 2020, after which the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad, passed an
order dated 17.01.2020 rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of a
fresh arms licence.
5. Aggrieved by the rejection order dated 17.01.2020, the petitioner
preferred a statutory appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Faridabad
Division. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner also filed an
application under Section 195 Cr.P.C. alleging fabrication of official records
and false reporting by certain police officials. However, the appellate
authority, vide order dated 23.02.2022, dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and
upheld the order dated 17.01.2020 without dealing with the petitioner’s
detailed submissions and supporting documents.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Contentions
On behalf of Petitioner
7. The petitioner appearing in person submits that the impugned order
dated 17.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad and the
appellate order dated 23.02.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner,
Faridabad Division are arbitrary and unsustainable as they disregard the
material available on record and the earlier appellate order dated 08.12.2017
3 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:39:07 :::
CWP-11854-2023 -4-
whereby the petitioner’s appeal against the initial rejection of his arms licence
application was allowed.
8. It is contended that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner’s case
was subjected to detailed verification and the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Ballabhgarh, vide recommendation dated 11.07.2018, submitted a favourable
report recommending grant of the arms licence, noting that the petitioner is an
Advocate by profession, a person of good conduct and having no criminal
antecedents. However, despite the favourable recommendation, the licensing
authority did not grant the licence and continued to keep the matter pending.
9. The petitoner further submits that although the police authorities at
Varanasi initially submitted favourable verification reports, certain
contradictory reports were subsequently generated within a short span of time
which, according to the petitioner, were false and motivated due to a property
dispute between the petitioner and his brother. It is argued that the licensing
authority relied upon these adverse reports while ignoring the earlier
favourable recommendations and the petitioner’s claim of threat to his life.
10. It is thus contended that the rejection of the petitioner’s application
is not based on any of the grounds contemplated under Section 14 of the Arms
Act, 1959 and that the appellate authority also dismissed the appeal without
properly considering the petitioner’s submissions and documents. On these
grounds, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the matter be
reconsidered in accordance with law.
4 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:39:07 :::
CWP-11854-2023 -5-
On behalf of Respondents
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that
the present writ petition is misconceived and not maintainable, as the
impugned orders dated 17.01.2020 passed by the licensing authority and
23.02.2022 passed by the appellate authority have been passed in accordance
with law and the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959.
12. It is contended that during the verification of the petitioner’s
application, reports were obtained from the police authorities at Faridabad as
well as Varanasi. The report received from the Superintendent of Police,
Varanasi disclosed that a criminal case under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 427
of the Indian Penal Code was pending against the petitioner and that
preventive action had also been taken against him under Section 151 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was further reported that a property
dispute was ongoing between the petitioner and his brother and that the
petitioner’s conduct was not found to be satisfactory.
13. Learned counsel submits that in view of the adverse reports received
from the police authorities, both at Varanasi and Faridabad, the licensing
authority assessed that the possibility of misuse of arms or disturbance to
public peace could not be ruled out. Accordingly, the petitioner’s application
for grant of arms licence was rejected.
14. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s appeal was duly
considered by the Divisional Commissioner, Faridabad Division, who found
no illegality in the decision of the licensing authority and dismissed the
appeal. The allegations regarding fabrication of reports and the application
5 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:39:07 :::
CWP-11854-2023 -6-
under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are stated to be
baseless and unsupported by any material. Hence, it is prayed that the present
writ petition be dismissed.
15. Heard counsel for both parties and the judgement was kept reserved
on 23.01.2026.
Analysis
16. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the licensing
authority as well as the appellate authority failed to consider the earlier
favourable police recommendations and instead relied upon allegedly false
and fabricated reports received from the police authorities at Varanasi.
17. At the outset, it is necessary to examine the statutory scheme
governing the grant of arms licences. The power to grant or refuse an arms
licence is regulated by the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959. Under Section
13 of the Act, the licensing authority is empowered to consider an application
for grant of licence after making such inquiry as it deems necessary. Section
14 of the Act provides the circumstances under which the licensing authority
shall refuse to grant a licence, including situations where the authority
considers such refusal necessary for the security of the public peace or for
public safety. Relevant provisions are as under:
13. Grant of licences.―
(1) An application for the grant of a licence under Chapter II shall
be made to the licensing authority and shall be in such form,
contain such particulars and be accompanied by such fee, if any, as
may be prescribed.
14. Refusal of licences.―
(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, the licensing authority6 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:39:07 :::
CWP-11854-2023 -7-shall refuse to grant―
(a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such
licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited
ammunition;
(b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,―
(i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing
authority has reason to believe–
(1) to be 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
(2) to be of unsound mind; or
(3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or
(ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security
of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such
licence.
(2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to
any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or
possess sufficient property.
(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any
person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and
furnish to that person 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.
The Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines under Section 14 of the
Arms Act expressly mandate that no arms licence can be issued without
thorough police verification, including antecedents, assessment of threat
perception, and capability of the applicant to handle arms safely.
18. The legal position regarding grant of arms licences is well settled
that the grant of such licence is not a matter of right but is subject to the
satisfaction of the licensing authority regarding the applicant’s antecedents,
conduct and the impact on public peace and safety. In this regard, reference
may be made to the judgment of the full bench of Allahabad High Court in
Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. 1985 AIR Allahabad 291, wherein it was held
that the licensing authority has wide discretion while considering an
7 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:39:07 :::
CWP-11854-2023 -8-
application for grant of an arms licence. The relevant extract of which is
produced as under:
In my opinion the obtaining of a licence for acquisition and
possession of firearms and ammunition under the Arms Act is
nothing more than a privilege and the grant of such privilege does
not involve the adjudication of the right of an individual nor does it
entail civil consequences. I may, however, hasten to add that even
an order rejecting the application for grant of licence may become
legally vulnerable if it is passed arbitrarily or capriciously or
without application of mind. No doubt, a citizen may apply for grant
of a licence of firearms mostly with the object of protecting his
person or property but that is mainly the function of the State. Even
remotely this cannot be comprehended within the ambit of
Article 21 of the Constitution which postulates the fundamental
right of protection of life and personal liberty.
19. It is also relevant to note that the Supreme Court in Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248, emphasized that even
fundamental rights can be reasonably restricted by the State in accordance
with law. Therefore, the State is duty bound to ensure public safety and order
and is under an obligation to ensure that the grant of arms licences does not
has an adverse affect on it.
20. In the present case, the authorities acted in accordance with law and
the relevant statute while considering the petitioner’s antecedents and threat
perception before rejecting his application. The record reveals that the
petitioner had initially applied for an arms licence in July 2014. The
application was rejected in October 2015, against which the petitioner
preferred an appeal. The appellate authority vide order dated 08.12.2017
remanded the matter for reconsideration. Thereafter, fresh verification was
8 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:39:07 :::
CWP-11854-2023 -9-
undertaken by the concerned authorities.
21. It is true that during the course of the verification conducted in
2018, a favourable recommendation dated 11.07.2018 was submitted by the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ballabhgarh recommending grant of the
licence. However, the record further shows that during the process of
verification, it came to light that the petitioner had earlier resided in Varanasi
and had relied upon the alleged murder of his father as one of the grounds for
seeking the licence. Consequently, verification was sought from the police
authorities at Varanasi.
22. The report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, City Varanasi
disclosed that a criminal case bearing FIR No. 2319 of 2018 under Sections
323, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code was pending against the
petitioner. It was also reported that preventive action had been taken against
him under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The report
further indicated the existence of a property dispute between the petitioner and
his brother and expressed reservations regarding the petitioner’s conduct. In
view of these circumstances, the Varanasi police authorities did not
recommend grant of the licence.
23. Following the receipt of these inputs, the licensing authority again
sought verification from the local police authorities at Faridabad. The
subsequent reports submitted by the SHO, the Assistant Commissioner of
Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police did not recommend issuance of
the arms licence to the petitioner. The reports indicated that in view of the
disputes and criminal proceedings involving the petitioner, the possibility of
9 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:39:07 :::
CWP-11854-2023 -10-
misuse of arms or disturbance to public peace could not be ruled out.
24. In light of the above material, the Commissioner of Police,
Faridabad passed the order dated 17.01.2020 rejecting the petitioner’s
application. The order records that the decision was taken after considering the
police reports received from both Varanasi and Faridabad and upon
assessment of the petitioner’s antecedents and conduct.
25. The contention raised by the petitioner that the licensing authority
ignored favourable reports cannot be accepted. It is settled law that police
verification reports are merely inputs for the licensing authority and the
authority is entitled to evaluate the entire material on record before arriving at
a final decision.
26. In “State of U.P. v. Jaswant Singh (1973) 1 SCC 702”, the
Supreme Court held that the licensing authority is the best judge of the
circumstances under which a firearm licence should be granted or refused.
Relevant extract is as under:
It is obligatory upon the licensing authority to grant a licence also
where an applicant for a licence satisfies the licensing authority
that he has good reason for obtaining it. It is clear that Section 13
recognises a right to a licence. Apart from cases where the fire arm
is required for protection or sport or crop Protection or for target
practice in a Rifle Club or Rifle Association, any one is entitled to it
if he has good reason for obtaining it. There must be good reason
for obtaining the licence, and that condition regulates the grant of a
licence. The requirement has been imposed to prevent an abuse of
the right by members of the public. Nonetheless, as soon as the
condition is satisfied the grant is obligatory and it is not open to a
licensing authority to refuse a licence arbitrarily. The grounds for10 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:39:07 :::
CWP-11854-2023 -11-refusing a licence have been carefully detailed in Section 14. The
licensing authority is forbidden to grant a licence where it is
required in respect of any prohibited arms and prohibited
ammunition. That is Section 14(1)(a). Section 14(1)(b) provides :
“Refusal of licences : (1) Notwithstanding anything in Section
13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant –
(b) a licence in ” any” other case under Chapter II
(i) where such licence is required by a person whom the
licensing authority has reason to believe.
(1) to be 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.
(2) to be of unsound mind, or
(3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or
(ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the
security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to
grant such licence.”
Section 14(2) enjoins upon the licensing authority not to refuse a
licence merely on the around that the applicant does not own or
possess sufficient property. Limited as the power to refuse a licence
is by virtue of Section 14(1)(b) and Section 14(2), the licensing
authority refusing to grant a licence is, by Section 14(3) required to
record in writing the reasons for such refusal and to furnish to the
applicant on demand a brief statement of the same unless public
interest renders it inexpedient to furnish such statement.
Thus, the Court should not substitute its own opinion for that of the
authority unless the decision is manifestly arbitrary or mala fide.
27. Similarly, in the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Ved Singh
v. Addl. Commissioner Of Police Licensing Unit in W.P.(C) 8506 of 2015
decided on 24.1.2019, it was held that:
“21. This Court has rendered several decisions holding that the
11 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:39:07 :::
CWP-11854-2023 -12-discretion of the Licensing Authority with regard to the threat
perception to any individual cannot be interfered with. In Raj
Kumar Pandey v. Additional Commissioner of Police & Anr: LPA
No. 44/2016, the Division Bench of this Court had held that
whether a threat perception exists has to be assessed by the
investigating agency and it would not be apposite for this Court to
foray into determining the said question.
22. In Praveen Kumar Beniwal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. :
LPA 41/2015, decided on 29.04.2015, the Division Bench of this
Court had referred to a decision of the Allahabad High Court
in State of U.P. v. Mahipat Singh: 2014 (2) ALJ 443, wherein it
was held that the scheme of the Arms Act and the Rules made
thereunder indicate that a wide discretion has been granted to the
Licensing Authority and such discretion cannot be confined to the
specified categories. The Court had also held that whether there is
perception of threat to the security of a citizen has to be considered
by the Licensing Authority and the Court would not substitute its
opinion for that of the Licensing Authority.”
28. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it
cannot be said that the decision of the licensing authority suffers from
arbitrariness or non-application of mind. The authority has taken into account
the reports received from the police authorities, the existence of criminal
proceedings, as well as the disputes involving the petitioner before arriving at
its conclusion.
29. Another argument of the petitioner that the adverse reports were
fabricated or prepared under extraneous influence also cannot be accepted in
the absence of any cogent material. Mere allegations against police officials
without substantiating evidence cannot be a ground for this Court to disregard
the official reports forming part of the record.
30. The petitioner had also relied upon an application allegedly filed
under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 alleging
12 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:39:07 :::
CWP-11854-2023 -13-
fabrication of records. However, the said provision is attracted only where
offences relating to giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial
proceeding are involved. In the present case, no material has been placed
before this Court to demonstrate that any such offence has been committed in
relation to proceedings before a Court. Therefore, the said contention is
devoid of merit.
31. As regards the appellate order dated 23.02.2022 passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Faridabad Division, the record shows that the
appellate authority examined the material available on record and concurred
with the findings of the licensing authority. Further, the discretionary power
under the Arms Act cannot be transformed into a right of entitlement merely
because the applicant faces personal threats or disputes. The petitioner cannot
dictate how the authorities weigh conflicting reports, especially when adverse
material exists.
32. It is also well settled that the power of judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution is limited to examining the decision-making process
and not the merits of the decision itself. The Court does not sit in appeal over
the decision of the administrative authority. Allegations of malafide intent,
without concrete proof, cannot form the basis for judicial intervention.
33. Consequently, this Court does not find any procedural irregularity or
violation of statutory provisions in the decision-making process adopted by
the licensing authority or the appellate authority. The authorities have
considered the relevant material, including police verification reports and the
petitioner’s antecedents, before arriving at their conclusion.
13 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:39:07 :::
CWP-11854-2023 -14-
Conclusion
34. Having regard to the nature of the power exercised under the Arms
Act and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish that the impugned orders
dated 17.01.2020 and 23.02.2022 suffer from illegality, arbitrariness or mala
fides warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore the petitioner’s writ petition does not merit interference.
35. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.
36. Pending application(s), if any shall be disposed off, accordingly.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
16.03.2026 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
14 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 17-03-2026 01:39:07 :::