Balbhandrasinh ... vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 6036 Guj

     C/SCA/9318/2021                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2022



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9318 of 2021

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:                             sd/-
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                      NO
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                               NO

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                     NO
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question                     NO
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
               BALBHANDRASINH MOHABBATSANGBHAI DODIA
                               Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANURAG R. RATHOR, ADVOCATE for
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
                      Date : 07/07/2022
                     ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia, seeking the following prayers.

"18.(A)That Your Lordships be pleased to admit this petition;

(B) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 01.02.2021 (ANN.H) passed by the respondent No.1 in Arms Appeal No.359/2019 and also be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 26.11.2019 (ANN.F) passed by the respondent No.2;

C/SCA/9318/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2022

(C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay the order dated 01.02.2021 (ANN.H) passed by the respondent no.l in Arms Appeal No.359/2019 and also be pleased to stay the order dated 26.11.2019 (ANN. F) passed by the respondent no.2 and also be pleased to direct the authority to issue Fire Arm Licence to the petitioner pending the petition in the interest of justice."

3. The short facts giving rise to filing the present petition are such that the petitioner, by profession, is a Chartered Accountant and having his offices at Botad, Surat and Ahmedabad. He is also an industrialist and to attend all the three offices, the petitioner needs to travel frequently. The petitioner is also having agriculture land, as the father of the petitioner was having about 80 Bighas of agriculture land. It is the case of the petitioner that on many occasions the petitioner has to travel even during night hours and also has to carry valuable and important documents and cash on some occasions. Hence, he had applied for seeking a Fire Arm Licence.

3.1 The petitioner has also undergone a training from Bhavnagar Gun Training and Development Association, which has issued a certificate, in this regard to the petitioner. In response to the application filed by the petitioner, the report from Superintendent of Police, Botad was asked for and the same was submitted on 08.10.2018 and thereafter, by the order dated 26.11.2019, the respondent authority dismissed the application of the petitioner, submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Botad and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Botad, for the reason that the opinions are not proper.

C/SCA/9318/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2022

3.2 Being aggrieved by the above order dated 26.11.2019, the petitioner preferred Arms Appeal No.359 of 2019 under Section 18 of the Arms Act. The appeal of the petitioner has been rejected by the order dated 01.02.2021 observing that there has not been any incident of theft or robbery taken place with the petitioner nor the petitioner has received any threat with regard to his life.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Rathor, appearing for Mr.Dagli, for the petitioner has submitted that both the authorities have not appreciated the true facts of the case and the reports issued in favour of the petitioner, while rejecting the application of the petitioner. He has placed reliance on the provision of Section 14 of the Arms Act and has submitted that the impugned orders are absolutely silent. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sorab Jehangir Bamji Vs. State of Gujarat Through Deputy Secretary, [2011 (3) GCD 2621], and has submitted that the impugned orders may be set aside. It is also asserted by him that the petitioner needs the arm since the petitioner has to travel even during night hours and also carrying valuable and important documents of his clients, so also required to carry cash on some occasions. It is submitted that this petition may be allowed.

5. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned AGP Mr.Hardik Mehta, has submitted that the impugned orders do not require interference since the same are appropriately passed by the authorities. It is submitted that for the reasons assigned in the impugned orders, it cannot be stated that the

C/SCA/9318/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2022

petitioner is in actual need of arms license or there is any threat to him. Thus, he has submitted that the writ petition may be rejected.

6. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.

7. It appears that the petitioner had filed an application dated 04.08.2018 seeking a license under the provisions of the Arms Act. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the aforesaid application, the office of the respondent authority had sought for the opinions of the District Superintendent of Police and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Botad with regard to any adverse material against the petitioner, However, nothing adverse with regard to his involvement in any of the illegal activities or with regard to his character has been opined in the reports by the authorities concerned. It is the case of the petitioner that he needs license, as the petitioner's firm is a reputed firm in the field of Chartered Accountant and the petitioner also needs to travel frequently and sometimes during the odd hours.

8. The District Magistrate, Botad has rejected the application of the petitioner for the the reason that he is is not having any threat to his life. It is further opined that nothing is produced to show that there is any personal enmity of any one with the petitioner and no past incident with regard to any theft is pointed out. The District Magistrate has not opined anything with regard to the report, which is found favourable to the petitioner. Similarly, the appellate authority has also rejected the appeal of the petitioner by the order dated 01.02.2021 reiterating the aforesaid terms.

C/SCA/9318/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2022

9. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the provision of Section 14 of the Arms Act. The same reads as under:

14. Refusal of licences.--

(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, 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 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.

10. The District Magistrate, while rejecting the application of the petitioner as well the appellate authority, while dealing with the appeal of the petitioner has passed the orders being oblivious to the provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act, which pertains to the refusal of the license. It is not the case of the State authorities that the petitioner has been found unworthy of the license on the grounds mentioned under Section 14 of the Arms Act. The grounds, as mentioned in the impugned orders, do not in any manner indicate that the petitioner is not entitled for the arms license and he is treated to be unfit for the license under the Arms Act.

C/SCA/9318/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2022

11. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and looking to the provision of the Arms Act, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 26.11.2019 passed by the District Magistrate and dated 01.02.2021 passed in Arms Appeal No.359 of 2019 by the Additional Secretary (Appeals), Home Department in State Government are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to issue license to the petitioner pursuant to the application dated 04.08.2018. However, it is clarified that while issuing the license, if any adverse incident comes to the notice to the District Magistrate, after the impugned order dated 26.11.2019, which directly implicates the petitioner in any offence, it may refuse to grant the license. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings, in case such adverse order is passed. Rule made absolute.

Direct service is permitted.

sd/-

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) MAHESH BHATI/33