Case title:
Devshibhai Raydebhai Gadher Versus State Of Gujarat
Date of judgement:
13.06.2022
Bench:
JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Parties:
MR RUTVIJ S OZA for the Petitioner(s)
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s)
Subject
The Gujarat High Court recently granted a writ petition challenging a District Magistrate's judgement rejecting the Petitioner's application for a weapons licence on the grounds that he was not ruled unsuitable under Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. Section 14 outlines the conditions in which a licencing authority may refuse to award a licence, including when the licencing authority believes it is required for the security of the public peace or public safety. A person of unsound mind or for any other reason unsuited for a licence may also be denied a licence.
Important provisions
Section 14 of the Arms Act.
Overview
- The Petitioner had submitted an application for an arms licence for self-defense under the Act, together with all required documentation.
- The respondent then sought the opinion of the District Superintendent of Police and Mamlatdar of Kalyanpur, and nothing negative about the Petitioner was found in their reports.
- The Petitioner's application, as well as his subsequent appeal, were both denied by the contested ruling. The Petitioner claimed that he need the arms because he works in the mining industry and also undertakes contract work that requires a lot of monetary travel.
- While rejecting his application and subsequent appeal, the Petitioner claimed that both the authorities and the report that was favourable to him did not grasp the true facts of the case and the report that was favourable to him.
- The Petitioner had submitted an application for an arms licence for self-defense under the Act, together with all required documentation.
- He further claimed that the contested decisions are devoid of any reference to Section 14 of the Arms Act, which governs the refusal of a licence.
Issue raised
- Whether an applicant could be refused arms license even if found worthy under Section 14 of Arms Act?
Arguments advanced by appellant
- The Petitioner claimed that he need the arms because he works in the mining industry and also undertakes contract work that requires a lot of monetary travel.
- While rejecting his application and subsequent appeal, the Petitioner claimed that both the authorities had failed to comprehend the true facts of the case and the favourable report.
- He further claimed that the contested decisions are devoid of any reference to Section 14 of the Arms Act, which governs the refusal of a licence.
Arguments advanced by respondent
- The Respondent's lawyer contended that the contested orders were properly issued and that no interference is required.
- It was argued that there was no threat to the Petitioner and that he did not require an arm because of the reasons provided in the ruling.
- The order said that the law-and-order situation in the Petitioner's operation area was sufficient, and that he could do his business without using cash by using an ATM, core banking, or checks.
- Nothing had been provided, according to the order, to establish that the Petitioner had any enmities or that his things had been stolen earlier.
Judgement analysis
- The Court noted that the opinions of the District Superintendent of Police and Mamlatdar were obtained in response to the Petitioner's plea, and nothing negative about his actions or character was discovered.
- In the challenged order, the District Magistrate failed to take into account the favourable report for the Petitioner, according to the Court. The Court noted that the appeal had been dismissed by the appellate body for the same grounds as the District Magistrate.
- The Court granted the writ petition, quashing the contested decisions and ordering the Respondent to grant the Petitioner a licence.
- The Court also stated that if any adverse incidence comes to the attention of the District Magistrate after the issuance of the impugned decision, which directly implicates the petitioner in any violation, he may refuse to award the licence.
Conclusion
The District Magistrate, in rejecting the petitioner's application, and the appellate authority, in dealing with the petitioner's appeal, have passed orders ignoring the provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, which deal with licence refusal. As a result, Respondent was ordered to provide the petitioner a licence in accordance with the application.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
