Rajender Singh Kadyan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others

-1-
CWP-24218-2026
107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-24218-2026
Date of Decision : 07.09.2026
RAJENDER SINGH KADYAN AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Ms. Monika Khatri, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Addl. AG, Haryana.
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)
1. Through the instant petition as cast under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the order dated
21.04.2026, whereby the application of petitioner no.2 for grant of an
arms licence was rejected by the SARAL Team.
2. Succinctly, the application of petitioner no.2 was shown as
“rejected” on the concerned web portal by merely mentioning the single
word “rejected”, whereas the application was required to be decided by
the competent licensing authority. Significantly, in the event of refusal to
grant an arms licence, the licensing authority was statutorily obligated
under Section 14(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, to record the reasons for such
refusal in writing. However, the licensing authority failed to discharge its
DHARAM VIR
2026.09.12 14:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-2-
CWP-24218-2026
statutory obligation and adopted an unusual mechanism of disposing of
applications through the web portal, thereby depriving applicants of the
reasons for rejection. Even from the status reflected on the web portal, it
could not be deciphered as to who had, in fact, passed the order rejecting
the application of petitioner no.2.
3. Therefore, vide order dated 06.08.2026, this Court directed
the District Magistrate to explain, by way of a specific affidavit, the
procedure/mechanism being followed for consideration and disposal of
applications seeking grant of arms licences, and the matter was adjourned
to 18.08.2026. During the hearing on 18.08.2026, learned State counsel
apprised the Court that, consequent upon District Jhajjar having been
declared a Commissionerate, the Commissioner of Police, Jhajjar, and not
the District Magistrate, is the competent authority for granting arms
licences. Consequently, a request was made for further time to file the
requisite affidavit in compliance with the order dated 06.08.2026.
4. On 24.08.2026, learned State counsel filed the compliance
report dated 21.08.2026, by way of an affidavit sworn by Ms.Deepti
Garg, IPS, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarters), Jhajjar, which
was taken on record. The mechanism as adopted, which was explained in
the affidavit ( supra ), reflects a sorry state of affairs as the arms licensing
authority is not exercising its jurisdiction, rather only after obtaining a
report from the SHO concerned, and the Assistant Commissioner of
DHARAM VIR
2026.09.12 14:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-3-
CWP-24218-2026
Police, is either allowing or declining the application without passing a
reasoned speaking order.
5. Insofar as the decision on the application of petitioner no.2
by the SARAL Team is concerned, it has been averred in the aforesaid
affidavit dated 21.08.2026, that the SARAL portal is a citizen-services
portal constituting an electronic mode for submission of requests for
various services, including applications for grant of arms licences. It has
been further averred that, upon submission, such applications are
converted into physical format or a regular file, whereafter the concerned
authorities, in the sequence narrated hereinabove, duly assess the matter
and the applications are accordingly disposed of.
6. Finding that the said affidavit conspicuously failed to
address the material issue, as to whether, the application of petitioner
no.2 was in fact decided by the licensing authority in accordance with the
provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, and the rules framed thereunder or not,
this Court directed the author of the affidavit to cause presence before
this Court vide order dated 24.08.2026.
7. In deference to the aforesaid direction, today Ms. Deepti
Garg, Deputy Commissioner of Police (HQ), Jhajjar, has caused her
appearance before this Court, and her explanation by way of an affidavit
dated 05.09.2026, filed by the learned State counsel, which is taken on
record. In the said affidavit it is specifically stated that since no reasoned
order was passed earlier, now a fresh reasoned and speaking order has
DHARAM VIR
2026.09.12 14:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-4-
CWP-24218-2026
been passed on 01.09.2026, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners, which has been annexed alongwith the affidavit as Annexure
R-1, through which the request of the petitioners for issuance of arms
licence has been rejected.
8. The attention of this Court was also drawn to the Office
Order dated 01.09.2026 (Annexure R-2), passed by the Commissioner of
Police, Jhajjar, whereby detailed directions have been issued requiring the
licensing authority, in the event of rejection of an application for grant or
renewal of an arms licence, to apprise the applicant of the reasons for
such rejection, so that no applicant is left unaware of the grounds on
which his/her application has been declined. Accordingly, a direction has
been issued to communicate a reasoned order to the applicant. The said
order is extracted hereinafter:-
“ OFFICE ORDER
Subject: Communication of reasons for rejection applications
for grant/renewal of Arms Licence.
It has been observed that applications relating to
the grant or renewal of arms licences are liable to be rejected
by the competent authority for various reasons permissible
under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms
Rules, 2016.
It is hereby directed that every applicant whose
application for the grant or renewal of an arms licence is
rejected shall have the right to know the reasons for such
rejection. No applicant shall be left unaware of the grounds on
which his or her application has been declined.
Accordingly, whenever an application for the
grant or renewal of an arms licence is rejected, the competent
authority and the branch concerned shall ensure that brief, clear
and specific reasons for such rejection are duly recorded and
communicated to the applicant.
The reasons so communicated shall be relevant to
the decision and shall not be vague, cryptic or confined to a
bare statement that the application has been rejected. Where the
rejection is founded upon a report, a verification, a statutory
DHARAM VIR
2026.09.12 14:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-5-
CWP-24218-2026
disqualification or any other legally permissible ground, the
decision shall indicate the material ground forming the basis of
the rejection, subject to any restriction on disclosure prescribed
by law.
This procedure shall be followed in all cases so as
to ensure transparency, fairness and compliance with the
principles of natural justice, and to enable the applicant to avail
such remedy of appeal or review, or such other legal remedy, as
may be available under law.
The officials concerned shall further ensure that
the reasons recorded in the office file or order and the reasons
communicated through the SARAL Portal are consistent with
each other.
This order shall come into force with immediate
effect.”
9. Further it is imperative to have a reference to Haryana
Government notification dated 08.03.2024, whereby in exercise of the
powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the
Arms Act. 1959 (Central Act 54 of 1959), the Governor of Haryana has
appointed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, (HQ) to exercise the
powers and perform the functions and duties of the District Magistrate
under the said Act, in the Commissionerate of Police of Jhajjar.
10. It appears that the authority concerned has now taken
congnizance of the procedural locuna and has initiated corrective
measures, not only to ensure that applications are decided in accordance
with the requirements of Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, but also to
ensure adherence to the procedure to be followed while deciding such
applications.
11. In view of the above, no further direction is required to be
passed by this Court. The instant petition is accordingly closed .
DHARAM VIR
2026.09.12 14:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-6-
CWP-24218-2026
12. The petitioners are, however, granted liberty to challenge the
aforesaid order dated 03.09.2026 (Annexure R-1) by taking apposite
remedy as available to them under the Arms Act, 1959.
13. Further, a direction is also issued upon the Registrar General
of this Court to circulate a copy of the this order as well as the office
order dated 01.09.2026 (Annexure R-2) passed by the Commissioner of
Police, Jhajjar to all the Police Commissioners of the Police
Commissionerates in the State of Haryana, for their perusal and
consideration, with a view to frame an apposite Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) to deal with and decide the arms licence applications,
which are now being received through Saral Portal.
14. Disposed of accordingly.
15. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
September 07, 2026 JUDGE
dharamvir
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
DHARAM VIR
2026.09.12 14:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document