C.W.P No.17606 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.17606 of 2010 Date of Decision.27.09.2011 Badal Ram s/o Hanuman Parshad r/o village Pur, Tehsil Bawani Khera, P.S. Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani (Haryana) .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through its Secretary cum Commissioner, Govt. of Haryana, Deptt. of Home, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petition challenges an order passed by the Commissioner rejecting an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order cancelling an arm licence. The two grounds on which the Appellate Authority has rejected the petitioner's appeal are that (i) the criminal case had already been registered at the time when licence was issued and therefore, there was no scope for cancellation merely by the fact that criminal cases were pending against him; (2) he had secured an arm licence for his personal use but in the explanation to the show cause notice, he stated that he was working as a gun man with one Mahavir Parshad. This was found by the authority as constituting a violation in terms of the licence. 2. Learned counsel states that as regards the criminal case that C.W.P No.17606 of 2010 -2- had been instituted against him, out of the four criminal cases, he has been honourably acquitted in three cases and in respect of the 4th case, which is still pending for alleged comission of offences under Section 323, 325, 506, 34 IPC, he was alleged to have used only a danda. He had not used a pistol or a gun to make him ineligible for rejection of the licence. As regards the contention that he had been in employment with Mahavir Parshad for his means of livelihood, it is nobody's case that he was actually using the gun as a gun man. 3. The authority has found as a matter of fact that he was wrong in stating that all criminal cases were registered against him even prior to the grant of licence. The authority has elicited the fact that the criminal case registered against him in FIR No.489 was on 13.05.2008 subsequent to the grant of licence and therefore, the ground taken that all criminal cases had been instituted against him even before the grant of licence was not correct. Even as regards his contention that he was a gun man without gun seems clearly untenable as tautological. 4. The grounds taken for rejection of his appeal are perfectly tenable in law and I find no reason to interfere with the same. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 27, 2011 Pankaj*