Can't Refuse Arms License Unless Applicant Found Unworthy U/S 14 Arms Act: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court recently allowed a writ petition challenging the order of District Magistrate rejecting the Petitioner's application for obtaining an arms license, stating that he was not found ineligible under Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959.Section 14 provides circumstances for 'Refusal of licences', including where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of...
The Gujarat High Court recently allowed a writ petition challenging the order of District Magistrate rejecting the Petitioner's application for obtaining an arms license, stating that he was not found ineligible under Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Section 14 provides circumstances for 'Refusal of licences', including where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. License may also be refused to a person of unsound mind or for any reason unfit for a licence.
Justice A.S. Supehia observed,
"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 not worthy 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."
The Petitioner had filed the application for obtaining an arms license for self-protection under the Act, with all necessary documents. Thereafter, opinion of the District Superintendent of Police and Mamlatdar, Kalyanpur was sought by the respondent and in their reports, nothing adverse against the Petitioner was found. By the impugned order, the Petitioner's application was rejected and so was his subsequent appeal.
The Petitioner asserted that he needs the arms as he is involved in mining business and also does contract business, which require a lot of travelling with cash. The Petitioner submitted that both the authorities had not appreciated the true facts of the case and the report that was favourable to him, while rejecting his application and subsequent appeal. He also contended that the impugned orders are absolutely silent as to the provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act, which pertains to the refusal of the license.
The counsel for the Respondent argued that the impugned orders were appropriately passed and do not require interference. Citing the reasons assigned in the order, it was contended that there was no threat to the Petitioner and he was not in actual need of an arm. The order had mentioned that the law-and-order situation in the area of the Petitioner's operation was satisfactory and that he could carry out his business transactions without cash, through an ATM or core banking or cheques. The order had opined that nothing was produced to show that the Petitioner had any enmities or that there had previously been any attempt of theft of his goods.
The Court noted that pursuant to the Petitioner's application, opinions of the District Superitendent of Police and Mamlatdar were sought and nothing adverse to his activities or character was found. The Court noted that the District Magistrate, in the impugned order, failed to take account of the report which was favourable to the Petitioner. The Court took note that the appellate authority had also rejected the appeal reiterating reasons same as the District Magistrate.
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned orders and directing the Respondent to issue license to the Petitioner. The Court also clarified that while issuing the license, if any adverse incident, after the issuing of the impugned order, comes to the notice to the District Magistrate, which directly implicates the petitioner in any offence, he may refuse to grant the license.
Case Title : DEVSHIBHAI RAYDEBHAI GADHER Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 221