Arms Licence Revocation Upheld Where Licensee Admitted Nephew Took Licensed Firearms and Uploaded Photographs on Facebook; Punjab and Haryana High Court Holds No Interference Warranted Under Articles 226 and 227

Case Name: Surender v. State of Haryana and Others

Date of Judgment: 24 September 2026

Citation: CWP-1009-2021

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that revocation of an arms licence under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, cannot be interfered with merely on the ground that the licensee subsequently disputes the identity of firearms depicted in social-media photographs, particularly where he had expressly admitted before the licensing authority that his nephew had taken out his licensed firearms in his absence and uploaded photographs with them on Facebook. Such an admission, duly recorded during proceedings before the competent authority, constitutes material relevant to the legality of the revocation order and cannot be disregarded merely because a subsequent inquiry was unable to conclusively match the firearms owing to the poor quality of the photographs.

The Court further held that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India does not permit it to function as an appellate forum over factual determinations made by competent statutory authorities. Judicial interference is warranted where an order suffers from patent perversity, illegality, jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice, and not merely because an alternative interpretation of the evidence may be possible.

Finding that the Deputy Commissioner had afforded the licensee an opportunity to submit his explanation and participate in a personal hearing before revoking the arms licence, and that the appellate authority had subsequently examined the matter, the Court held that the impugned orders disclosed no legal infirmity warranting interference.

Summary: The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, examined the legality of orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat, and the Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak Division, whereby the petitioner’s arms licence had been revoked under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, and his statutory appeal against the revocation had been dismissed.

The controversy arose after the petitioner, Surender, was served with a show-cause notice alleging that his licensed firearms had come into the possession of his nephew, Ankush, who subsequently uploaded photographs of himself with the firearms on Facebook. Treating the incident as a contravention of the terms and conditions governing the arms licence and the applicable statutory provisions, the Deputy Commissioner initiated proceedings for revocation of the licence.

The petitioner appeared before the licensing authority and submitted his explanation. After considering his reply and affording him an opportunity of personal hearing, the Deputy Commissioner found the explanation unsatisfactory and revoked the arms licence by order dated 27.02.2020. The petitioner challenged the revocation before the Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak Division, but his statutory appeal was dismissed by order dated 22.10.2020.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court, contending that there was no material establishing that his conduct had endangered public peace or safety or that his licensed firearms had actually been misused. It was argued that the authorities had proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the firearms appearing in the social-media photographs belonged to him.

The petitioner further relied upon an inquiry conducted pursuant to an order dated 08.03.2021 passed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court. The inquiry had been directed to ascertain whether the firearms depicted in the photographs were the same as those covered by the petitioner’s arms licence. The resulting report recorded that the poor quality of the photographs prevented a conclusive comparison between the depicted firearms and the licensed weapons. Relying upon this finding, the petitioner contended that the uncertainty regarding the identity of the firearms ought to operate in his favour and that the revocation orders deserved to be set aside.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner had himself admitted during the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner that his nephew had taken out the licensed firearms in his absence and subsequently misused them. It was argued that the petitioner could not avoid the consequences of his earlier admission by subsequently disputing the identity of the firearms shown in the photographs.

Upon examining the record, the High Court noted that it was undisputed that Ankush had uploaded photographs on a social-media platform in which firearms were visible. The photographs indicated that he had been in possession of firearms on several occasions. The principal factual controversy concerned whether the firearms shown in those photographs belonged to the petitioner.

The Court examined the inquiry report prepared pursuant to the earlier judicial direction and observed that Ankush had made a confessional statement admitting that he had uploaded photographs while possessing the petitioner’s licensed firearms. The inquiry report also recorded the registration of FIR No. 48 dated 17.04.2021 under Sections 25, 30, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Mohana, District Sonipat, against the petitioner and his nephew in connection with the alleged misuse of the firearms.

Significantly, the High Court held that even if the findings contained in the subsequent inquiry report were excluded from consideration, the petitioner’s own admission before the Deputy Commissioner was sufficient to undermine his challenge to the revocation order.

The Court referred to the statement recorded during the petitioner’s personal hearing on 13.02.2020, wherein he had acknowledged that his nephew had taken out the licensed firearm in his absence and uploaded a photograph with it on Facebook. The petitioner had also apologised for the incident and assured the licensing authority that he would comply with the conditions governing the arms licence in future.

In view of this express admission, the Court found that the petitioner’s subsequent argument disputing the identity of the firearms depicted in the photographs had lost its significance. The inability of the inquiry to conclusively match the weapons through photographic comparison did not negate the admission previously made by the petitioner before the competent statutory authority.

The High Court then considered the permissible scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It reiterated that the High Court, while exercising constitutional supervisory jurisdiction, does not sit as a court of appeal over decisions rendered by subordinate courts, tribunals or statutory authorities. Its scrutiny is directed towards ensuring that the authorities have acted within the limits of their statutory jurisdiction and in accordance with law.

The Court observed that the impugned orders had been passed after compliance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had received a show-cause notice, submitted his explanation and been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before the Deputy Commissioner. The statutory appellate remedy had also been availed of and decided.

The Court further found that neither the original revocation order nor the appellate order suffered from patent perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error. The authorities had acted within the powers conferred upon them by the Arms Act, 1959, and no procedural irregularity warranting judicial interference had been established.

Rejecting the petitioner’s attempt to secure a fresh appreciation of the factual material, the Court emphasised that the mere possibility of arriving at a different conclusion or adopting another interpretation of the evidence does not justify interference with an otherwise lawful administrative or statutory determination.

Accordingly, the High Court concluded that the orders revoking the petitioner’s arms licence and dismissing his statutory appeal satisfied the requirements of legality and did not call for interference in the exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat, revoking the petitioner’s arms licence, as well as the appellate order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak Division.

The Court held that the petitioner’s admission regarding his nephew having taken out the licensed firearms and uploaded photographs on Facebook materially undermined his challenge to the revocation. The subsequent inability to identify the firearms conclusively from the photographs did not warrant setting aside the orders, particularly in view of the admission recorded before the licensing authority.

Finding no patent perversity, illegality, jurisdictional defect or violation of the principles of natural justice, the Court declined to interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned orders were accordingly upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.