Shri Rajendra Singh Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:51042
1 WP-25583-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
th
ON THE 13 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 25583 of 2026
SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH RAGHUWANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ayur Jain - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Alok Agnihotri - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated
01.05.2026 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby an application preferred
by the petitioner for selling of his old and damaged gun and replacing it with
another gun, has been rejected.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is holder of a valid arms 12 bore
license bearing number C.K 2002/DM/Raisen/navi/2002, which is valid till
31.12.2027. Since, the said arm had become old & damaged, the petitioner
through an application dated 28.11.2024 requested to the respondent Nno. 2
to replace the said arm by selling it and permit to purchase of a new N.P.
(non- prohibited) arm in its place. The respondent No.2 on 30.12.2024
directed to the respondent No.3 to conduct inquiry from the armourer in
connection with the permission sought by the petitioner. The respondent
No.3 submitted a report which was unclear and on the basis of the said
report, the application of petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
10:57:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:51042
2 WP-25583-2026
Hence, this petition.

3. It is argued that the respondents/authorities while passing the impugned
order have not assigned any reasons and has been passed without application
of mind. Since, the petitioner holds a valid arms license which has validity
till 31.12.2027, the petitioner is entitled to use the weapon as well as to
replace it as per Rule 18 and Rule 80 of the Arms Rules, 2016. The
respondents authorities have failed to consider with the relevant Rules and
without application of mind has passed the impugned order. Placing reliance
upon a judgment passed in the case of M/s Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. vs
Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, he prays for quashing
of the impugned order.
4. The State counsel could not dispute the fact the order impugned is a
non-speaking order and has been passed without application of mind.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates (P) Ltd.
(supra) has held as under :-
"47. Summarizing 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
10:57:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:51042
3 WP-25583-2026
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 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 vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ
405, wherein the Court 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."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
10:57:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:51042
4 WP-25583-2026
The Hon'ble Supreme in the aforesaid case has considered the aspect

of principles of natural justice and fair play and also the fact that the reasons
are the heart beat of the orders or judgments and even the quasi-judicial
authorities are required to pass reasoned orders after appreciating the grounds
raised by the parties. In the present case, the impugned order has been passed
by the authorities rejecting the application of the petitioner for selling of old
weapon and replacing it with a new for arm license which is valid up to
31.12.2027 without application of mind and no reasons are assigned by the
authorities.
7. Under these circumstances, the the impugned order dated
01.05.2026 passed by the respondent No.2 is unsustainable and it is hereby
quashed. The matter is remanded back to the authorities for reconsideration
of the case of the petitioner in accordance with law giving audience to the
petitioner. The entire exercise be completed within a period of 30 days from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed
off. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
10:57:57