Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Verma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041335
CWP-8466-2025 (O&M) 1
105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-8466-2025 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 26.03.2025
AJAY VERMA ... PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, DAG Haryana.
***
LAPITA BANERJI, J. (ORAL)
1. Under challenge in the present writ petition is the impugned order dated December 31, 2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad (Haryana) and order dated December 04, 2024 passed by the Commissioner, Faridabad Division, Faridabad (Annexure P-7).
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was unable to understand true meaning and purport of Column No.13A of the application form and therefore, answered in the negative, to the query raised in the said column. The query under Column No.13A was vague in nature. Therefore, once the petitioner had been granted arms licence in the year 2015, the same could not be cancelled or revoked.
1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 04:09:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041335 CWP-8466-2025 (O&M) 2
3. He has taken this Court through the provisions of Section 14 and Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'the 1959 Act'). He submits that licence could have been revoked only if the conditions under Section 17(3) of the 1959 Act were violated.
4. He has also submitted that licence could have been refused to the petitioner only if there was violation of the conditions stipulated under Section 14(1)(e) of the 1959 Act. Since the said conditions had not been violated, the authorities erroneously passed the impugned orders dated December 31, 2021 and December 04, 2024.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. It is relevant to reproduce the information sought for in Column 13A of the application form. Column 13A reads as under:-
"Whether the applicant has been presently/previously involved in any criminal case (Whether convicted/acquitted, Pending/Trial or cancellation/untraced of FIR)"
6. Admittedly, the petitioner's answer was 'No' to the information sought for under Column 13A.
7. It is also relevant to reproduce Sections 14 and 17 of the Arms Act, 1959.
"14. Refusal of licences.― (1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant
(a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition;
(b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,
(i) where such licence is required by a person 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 04:09:09 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041335 CWP-8466-2025 (O&M) 3 whom the licensing authority has reason to believe (1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition; or (2) to be of unsound mind; or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or
(ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence.
(2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property.
(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.
17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences. (1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence-
holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time as may specified in the notice.
(2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed.
(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence,
(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 04:09:09 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041335 CWP-8466-2025 (O&M) 4 carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or
(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or
(c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or
(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or
(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence.
(4) The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof.
(5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefore and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement. (6) The authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate may by order in writing suspend or revoke a licence on any ground on which it may be suspended or revoked by the licensing authority; and the foregoing provisions of this section shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the suspension or revocation of a licence by such authority.
(7) A court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder may also suspend or revoke the licence:
Provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or
4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 04:09:09 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041335 CWP-8466-2025 (O&M) 5 otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void. (8) An order of suspension or revocation under sub-section (7) may also be made by an appellate court or by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision.
(9) The Central Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, suspend or revoke or direct any licensing authority to suspend or revoke all or any licences granted under this Act throughout India or any part thereof.
(10) On the suspension or revocation of a licence under this section the holder thereof shall without delay surrender the licence to the authority by whom it has been suspended or revoked or to such other authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of suspension or revocation."
8. Under Section 14(1)(b)(3) of the 1959 Act, if the authorities were of the opinion that for any reason a person was unfit for a licence, the same could be refused to the applicant.
9. Under Section 17 of the 1959 Act, if the authorities were of the opinion that the licence was obtained by suppression of material information, licence could be varied or suspended or revoked.
10. The petitioner was admittedly convicted under Sections 13, 3 of 1867 of the Public Gambling Act in FIR No. 11 dated January 05, 2009. The said fact was not brought on record at the time of application for issuance of the arms licence. Even though a minor penalty of Rs.500/- may have been imposed by the JMIC, Faridabad on the petitioner, it was incumbent on the petitioner to make a correct declaration, while applying for the arms licence. The petitioner answered in the negative to the query raised in Clause 13(A) of the application form and thereby concealed "material information" before the authorities concerned. In the application form for 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 04:09:09 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041335 CWP-8466-2025 (O&M) 6 renewal also, the petitioner wrongly answered to the query. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice and was given a personal hearing. The answer given by the petitioner was not satisfactory and therefore, his arms licence was revoked/not renewed. The conduct of the petitioner was not appreciated by the authorities concerned.
11. The authorities found that the petitioner violated Rule 51(A) and also Rule 30 of the Arms Rules and Section 30 of the 1959 Act.
12. This Court has no hesitation to hold that once the petitioner has voluntarily furnished wrong information to the authorities concerned and acted in violation of Section 30 of the 1959 Act, the petitioner cannot now approach the writ Court for a discretionary remedy in his favour.
13. It is trite law that a litigant who approaches the Court with unclean hands cannot be shown any leniency. A beneficial reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in 'Ramjas Foundation and another vs. Union of India and others' reported in (2010) 14 SCC 38'. The relevant extract has been reproduced herein:-
"14. The principle that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every Court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 04:09:09 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041335 CWP-8466-2025 (O&M) 7 resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case.
xxx xxx xxx
15. The above noted rules have been applied by this Court in large number of cases for declining relief to a party whose conduct is blameworthy and who has not approached the Court with clean hands - Hari Narain v. Badri Das, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1558, Welcome Hotel v. State of A.P., (1983) 4 SCC 575, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Government of Karnataka, (1991) 3 SCC 261, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, 1994(1) R.R.R. 253 : (1994) 1 SCC 1, A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P., 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 431 : 2007(2) R.A.J. 451 : (2007) 4 SCC 221, Prestige Lights Limited v. SBI, 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 46 : 2007(4) R.A.J. 642 : (2007) 8 SCC 449, Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India, 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 555 :
(2008) 2 SCC 326, K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481, G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel, (2009) 3 SCC 141 and Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114. In the last mentioned judgment, the Court lamented on the increase in the number of cases in which the parties have tried to misuse the process of Court by making false and/or misleading statements or by suppressing the relevant facts or by trying to mislead the Court in passing order in their favour and observed :
7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 04:09:09 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041335 CWP-8466-2025 (O&M) 8 "For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahimsa" (non-
violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post- Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."
14. Accordingly, the present writ petition being CWP-8466-2025 is dismissed.
8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 04:09:09 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041335 CWP-8466-2025 (O&M) 9
15. Connected applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed of.
26.03.2025 (LAPITA BANERJI)
Janki JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 04:09:09 :::