C.W.P. No.21442 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.21442 of 2010 Date of Decision.06.09.2011 Narender Sura @ Narender Singh s/o Sh. Balbir Singh, r/o 1319/31, Pragati Nagar, Gohana Road, Sonepat, District Sonepat .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through its Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Home Affairs, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner challenges the order refusing renewal of licence by the Licensing Authority on the ground that as per the report of the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner for alleged offences under Section 406/420 IPC and that his request could be considered after the criminal case is over. While issuing the order, the Licensing Authority has stated that appropriate security shall be given to the petitioner in compliance with the directions already given by this Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would say that there is no criminal antecedents for him and the criminal case under Section 406/420 IPC will not be so serious to deny to the petitioner a C.W.P. No.21442 of 2010 -2- right of arms licence. According to him, he has a fundamental right to possess an arms licence and would rely on the decision of Allahabad High Court in Ram Chandra Yadav Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad & Ors. 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 388. I cannot accept a plea that any one has a right to demand an arms licence. There is no such right recognized by law and arms licence is a subject of stringent regulation by State. If the decision of the authority is arbitrary and does not conform to law, only then there is a scope for interference. In this case, the pendency of a criminal case has been found to be a justifying circumstance to refuse the request for renewal of licence. I do not find any error in the approach. 3. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the State that there is a provision of appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act and without exhausting the remedy in appeal, he could not prefer the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner would state that Section 18 of Arms Act would apply only to cases of rejection of licence applied for the first time and not in situation of failure to renew a licence and postponing the matter. Section 18 of Arms Act reads thus:- “18. Appeals.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the licensing authority refusing to grant a licence or varying the conditions of a licence or by an order of the licensing authority or the authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate, suspending or revoking a licence may prefer an appeal against that order to such authority (hereinafter referred to as the appellate authority) and within such period as may be prescribed: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order made by or under the direction of, the Government. (2) xxxx xxxx xxxxx.” 4. The Section that contemplates refusal to grant a licence or C.W.P. No.21442 of 2010 -3- varying the conditions of issuance of a licence in the context in which the Section appears in Chapter III would apply to all types of licences whether it is refusal of licence applied for the first time or refusal of the request for renewal. In either event, Section 18 applies and even without resort to appeal remedy, which is provided under Section 18, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. The writ petition is dismissed for the above reasons. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 06, 2011 Pankaj*