Chandreshkumar Bhupatbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 242 Guj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 242 Guj
Judgement Date : 10 January, 2023

Gujarat High Court

Chandreshkumar Bhupatbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 10 January, 2023

Bench: Biren Vaishnav

      C/SCA/9598/2021                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 10/01/2023




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9598 of 2021

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
================================================================
 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the
   judgment ?

 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
   judgment ?

 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to
   the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
   thereunder ?

================================================================
                  CHANDRESHKUMAR BHUPATBHAI KERALIYA
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KAUSHAL MODI, ADVOCATE for MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAY B TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
                       Date : 10/01/2023
                      ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Jay B. Trivedi, learned

Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of

Rule for and on behalf of the respondents.

2. With consent of the learned advocates for the respective

C/SCA/9598/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/01/2023

parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

3. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the

orders dated 28.06.2018 and 06.06.2019 passed by the

competent authorities, by which, the application of the

petitioner for an arms licence, in addition to the one he

already possesses for protection of crop from cattle has

been rejected.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is engaged in the

business of cement production and, therefore in course

of his business, he has to undertake much cash

transactions. He, therefore, needs an arms licence to

protect his life which is in danger because of much

amounts of cash that he carries.

5. It appears that the application for renewal of such licence

has been rejected on the following four grounds:

C/SCA/9598/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/01/2023

(a) That the petitioner does not have appropriate

training from recognized institution;

(b) That for the years 2014-15, 2015-16 and

2016-17 his Income Tax returns were NIL;

(c)That there is no perception of any threat to his life

and;

(d) that the petitioner already possesses a licence

for crop protection. The other ground is that adverse

opinion has been received from the DSP office.

6. Mr. Kaushal Modi, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner would submit that as far as the objection with

regard to the petitioner not having undertaken training

from a recognized institute is concerned, the petitioner

has a certificate of training issued by the Bhavnagar Gun

House. As far as the other two grounds i.e. with regard to

his IT returns and perception of threat, Mr. Modi would

C/SCA/9598/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/01/2023

rely on an order passed by this Court in SCA No.14823 of

2019 dated 3.9.2019.

7. Mr. Jay B. Trivedi, learned AGP for the respondents would

submit that the order of the authorities is just and

proper. The petitioner already possesses the licence for

crop protection and, therefore, there is no reason why he

needs another licence and he also relies on the

endorsement upon the licence issued for the crop

protection which indicates that it is extended upto area

beyond Vinchhia.

8. Considering the submissions made by the learned

advocates for the respective parties, what needs to be

appreciated is that the application of the petitioner for

renewal of arms licence has been rejected on multiple

grounds. Essentially, one of the four grounds which have

weighed with the authorities is that he did not have a

certificate of training from a recognized institute. As far

as that is concerned, in light of the averment made in the

C/SCA/9598/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/01/2023

petition that the petitioner possesses a certificate of the

Bhavnagar Gun House, it is open for the respondent

authorities to reconsider this point in considering

application for renewal. The other two grounds namely;

that of the petitioner having NIL IT returns for the past

three years i.e. 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and that

there is no perception of threat to his life, these findings

of the authority deserves reconsideration in light of the

order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application

No.14823 of 2019 in which, this Court held as under:

"4. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that the petitioner had made an application for firearm license before the License Issuing Authority i.e. District Magistrate, Botad. The order passed by the License Issuing Authority dated 15.04.2015 would indicate that the application of licence is rejected on the ground that there is no danger to the life of the petitioner as he has not received any threat, the income of the petitioner is not so high, at present, e-banking facility, credit card and debit card facility is available and that he already possesses 12 Bore gun licence for crop

C/SCA/9598/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/01/2023

protection. Other than this, there are no reasons mentioned in the order of the licence issuing authority. Consequently, order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the Joint Secretary, Home Department in Appeal No.223 of 2015 also reiterates the findings given by the License Issuing Authority.

5. Moreover, the authorities have not taken into considered the positive opinions from the District Superintendent of Police, Deputy Collector and Police Sub Inspector. This Court is also of the opinion that the grounds mentioned in the impugned orders are not germane to Section 14 and possession of crop protection firearm licence cannot be bar to possess self-defence licenced weapon. It is also required to be noted that the petitioner is not involved in any offence / criminal activities.

6. In view of the aforesaid, order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the Joint Secretary, Home Department (Appeals) in Appeal No.223 of 2015 and order dated 15.04.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Botad are quashed and set aside. It is open for the petitioner to make a fresh application with necessary documents to the License Issuing Authority within period of two weeks from today. The District Magistrate shall consider such application afresh, in accordance with law and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within period of two months therefrom."