AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 4th May 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6950
of 2015.
Heard learned advocate Ms. Mita S. Panchal for the appellant and learned AGP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya for the respondent authority.
Following facts can be gathered from the record of the appeal:
3.1 Appellant is an agriculturist and practicing advocate at Bhavnagar and surrounding towns. It is the case of the appellant that he own agricultural
lands at different places, namely, village Chitra and Sanodar. It is also the case of appellant that he is practicing advocate on criminal sides and has to
travel alone and carry huge cash amount alongwith him, and therefore, he applied for licence of 32 Bore revolver/pistol for self defence. The said
application filed by the appellant on 8th November 2011 came to be turned down. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal, as
provided under Section 18 of the Arms Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Actâ€) before the State Government, which came to be dismissed
by the District Magistrate, Home Department, Gandhinagar on 16th September 2014. Both the orders of rejection were challenged by way of writ
petition, being Special Civil Application No. 6950 of 2016 which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 4th May 2016. The said orders are
impugned in this appeal.
Ms. Mita S Panchal, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has taken this Court through two orders arising out of this appeal, more
particularly, order passed by the District Magistrate. Ms. Panchal contended that as per Section 14(2) of the Act, considering application for arms
licence, income of applicant is not to be considered. Ms. Panchal submitted that District Magistrate merely by rejecting application has considered the
Income tax returns of last three years. Ms. Panchal also further contended that even in appeal as well as in petition before the learned Single Judge,
though the said facts were raised, the same have not been considered. Ms. Panchal contended that though it is discretionary to grant or not to grant
such licence, however, licence cannot be refused on any such ground, which are not provided under Section 14 of the Act. Ms. Panchal contended
that District Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that the appellant does not possess such income. On the aforesaid grounds, therefore, it
was contended by learned advocate Ms. Panchal that orders deserve to be quashed and set aside and the proceedings are required to be remitted
back to the first authority ie., District Magistrate to reconsider the application in accordance with law, and not to refuse the licence on any aspect
which is provided under Section 14(2) of the Act.
Per Contra, Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned AGP for the State authority contended that the order of District Magistrate and State Government are
legal and proper however income is considered. Upon instructions, Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader does not invite any
further reasons, on the issue.
Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and upon considering provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act, it clearly transpires that the
Licencing Authority shall not refuse to grant licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property.
From the first order in original passed by the District Magistrate, it clearly appears that District Magistrate has considered Income tax returns for last
three years.
In light of aforesaid, therefore, even though we are in agreement with the observations made by learned Single Judge that grant of arms licence is
discretionary, however, the fact remains that such discretion should be exercised in accordance with law and provisions which are carved out under
Section 14(2) of the Act are to be construed properly for consideration of licence.
In peculiar facts and circumstances, therefore, we quash all the orders passed below and remit the application for licence filed by the appellant back
to the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar. District Magistrate, Bhavnagar shall rehear the appellant and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law.
Present order shall not be treated as precedent, as this order is passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
With aforesaid observation, the present appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.