Gujarat High Court
Vikramsinh Ranjitsinh Mori vs State Of Gujarat on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14525/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14525 of 2021
==========================================================
VIKRAMSINH RANJITSINH MORI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS JYOTI BHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 23/08/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. B. M. Mangukiya, the learned advocate
appearing for the writ-applicant and Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, the
learned AGP appearing for the respondents.
2. By way of present writ-application the writ-applicant
herein is aggrieved by order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the
respondent authority wherein application seeking arms license
filed by the writ-applicant dated 24.5.2018 duly produced at
page-23 Annexure-E came to be rejected by the respondent
authority relying on the negative opinion of the learned Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Barvala.
3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.12.2012
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14525/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/08/2023
undefined
passed by the learned District Magistrate, Botad and the
respondent - State Government in appeal confirming the order
passed by the learned District Magistrate in Arms Complaint
No.16 of 2019 the writ-applicant herein approached this Court
seeking the following reliefs :-
"(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment
and order passed by the respondent no.1 dated August 29,
2019, AnnexureL, confirming the order passed by the
respondent no.2 - District Magistrate, Botad, dated December
18, 2018 - Annexure-K;
(B) Pending admission and final disposal of the present
petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and
execution of the impugned judgment and order passed by the
respondent no.1 dated August 29, 2019, Annexure-L ,
confirming the order passed by the respondent no.2 - District
Magistrate, Botad, dated December 18, 2018 - Annexure-K;
(D) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may
be deemed fit and proper."
4. Mr. Mangukiya, the learned advocate at the outset
submitted that the orders impugned are against the provisions
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14525/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/08/2023
undefined
of the Arms Act whereby the reliance is placed on the negative
opinion by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. While giving
the said opinion produced at page-48 reliance is placed on the
Income-tax returns which were not produced by the writ-
applicant and the said authority came to a subjective
satisfaction because the writ-applicant is in business of hotel
and there is no reason for the writ-applicant to have cash and
that the writ-applicant should use the technology which is
available and, therefore, for the said reason gave negative
opinion as produced at page-48 Annexure-G.
5. Mr. Mangukiya, the learned advocate also submitted that
the police authority has given positive opinion. He submitted
that the writ-applicant is having valid training certificate in
accordance with Rule 10 of the Rules. Considering the
aforesaid, it was submitted that the prayers as prayed for in
the writ-application requires to be allowed on the sole ground
that the said reasoning is against the provisions of the Act.
6. Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, the learned AGP appearing for the
respondent State was not in position to controvert the aforesaid
submissions advanced by Mr. Mangukiya, the learned advocate
appearing for the writ-applicant.
7. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14525/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/08/2023
undefined
advocates appearing for the respective parties. At this stage, it
is apposite to refer to Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959.
"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."
8. It is also apposite to refer to the order dated 23.08.2022
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14525/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/08/2023
undefined
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent
Appeal No.485 of 2022. Paragraph 6 of the said order reads
thus:
"[6] In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot
be sustained. Yet another factor is, the fact that District
Magistrate has arrived at a conclusion that income tax returns
of the petitioner for the last three years would not disclose
that petitioner having carried on substantial business in sand,
the basis on which the petitioner had also pressed for grant
of arms license. The moot question would be whether the
financial aspect can be the yardstick for granting or refusal of
an arms license? Answer will have to be necessarily in the
negative, inasmuch as the financial grading of a person in the
society cannot be the basis on which the arms license can be
granted or refused as such license is sought by an applicant
apprehending danger to his life. It all depends on facts and
circumstances obtained in each case. It is the subjective
satisfaction, based on objective assessment the licensing
authority will arrive at a conclusion to grant or refuse the
grant of arms license and paramount consideration would be,
whether there is danger to the life of the applicant which
warrants grant of Arms License. Even according to the District
Magistrate, the income tax returns do disclose that the
petitioner was carrying on the business of sand. Be that as it
may. The fact that the license having been refused on these
two grounds apart from that petitioner can seek protection
from jurisdictional police by itself is not a ground inasmuch
as there may be myriad circumstances in which the petitioner
may be placed and has to defend himself which may warrant
such applicant to possess the license. In that view of the
matter, we are of the considered view that impugned order
cannot be sustained."
9. At this stage, it is also apposite to refer to the ratio as
laid down by this Court in the case of Pratapbhai Suragbhai
Varu Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 2006 (4) GLR
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14525/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/08/2023
undefined
3031. Paragraph 7, 10 and 11 of the said decision read thus:
"7. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that
even in other case, which is referred to by the appellate
authority without mentioning the number, it was Criminal
Case No.980 of 2000, there also, the petitioner is acquitted
by judgment and order dated 19.01.2002. A copy of which is
produced at Annexure-I to this petition.
10. This Court taking into consideration the fact that the
authority deciding the Revision Application had not taken
into consideration the judgment and order of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, allowed the application filed by
the petitioner and declared that the petitioner shall be
entitled to apply for revival of the licence issued to him
which was calcelled by the order under challenge. A
contention was raised that the petitioner did not produce the
certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, but the same was
negatived as it was replied that as the date fixed for hearing
was not intimated to the petitioner, he could not remain
present before the authority and could not produce the
certified copy of the order.
11. In the present case, the facts are not as grave as were in
the case discussed hereinabove. In that view of the matter,
this Court is of the opinion that orders dated 02.07.2002 and
04.11.2000 cannot be sustained. The same are quashed. The
petitioner shall be entitled to apply for renewal of licence
issued to him. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute
with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted."
10. Considering the ratio as laid down and the provisions of
law as referred above, in the opinion of this Court, the writ-
applicant herein applied for seeking arms license by
application dated 24.5.2018. The respondent authorities
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14525/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/08/2023
undefined
concurrently held against the writ-applicant and rejected the
said application relying on the opinion of the learned Sub-
Divisional Magistrate which was a negative opinion, however
this Court has considered the said opinion wherein reliance is
placed on the income-tax returns which were not produced by
the writ-applicant herein. Considering the settled legal position
of law in the opinion of this Court such would be a subjective
satisfaction for considering an application seeking arms license
it would not be germane for the respondent authority to
consider the income-tax returns of the writ-applicant. The
application dated 24.5.2018 ought to have been considered
under the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 of the Act. The
only reason recorded by the respondent authority while
rejecting the said application is relying on the negative opinion
of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. In the opinion of this
Court, the negative opinion itself is against the provisions of
Section 14 of the Act. In view thereof, the impugned order
dated 29.8.2019 Annexure-L confirming the order dated
18.12.2012 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Botad
are hereby quashed and set aside.
11. In the facts of the present case and the position of law
as referred above exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India the impugned order
passed by the respondent no.1 dated August 29, 2019,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14525/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/08/2023
undefined
Annexure-L, confirming the order passed by the respondent
no.2 - District Magistrate, Botad, dated December 18, 2018 -
Annexure-K are hereby quashed and set aside remanding the
matter back to the respondent No.2 herein to decide the
application preferred by the writ-applicant herein seeking arms
license dated 24.5.2018 alongwith the documents produced by
the writ-applicant herein afresh in accordance with law within
a period of six weeks after undertaking fresh procedure under
Section 13 of the Arms Act.
12. The present writ-application is allowed to the aforesaid
extent. Direct service is permitted.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
K.K. SAIYED
