The Gujarat High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the orders passed by the District Magistrate whereby the petitioner's plea for an arms license was rejected.

The Single Bench of Justice A. S. Supehia observed that the petitioner was not found unworthy of the arms license on the grounds mentioned under Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The Petitioner had applied for an arms license for self-protection under the provision of the Arms Act, with all the necessary documents. However, the application of the petitioner was rejected despite nothing adverse being found against the petitioner.

An appeal was filed against this decision but the appeal was also rejected by the appellate authority.

Advocate Rutvij S Oza appearing for the petitioner submitted that both the authorities failed to appreciate the true facts of the case. He further submitted that the application for license was rejected despite the reports being issued in favor of the petitioner.

He also submitted that the petitioner needs the arm since he deals with the mining business and was also doing contract business, which required a lot of traveling with cash.

In response to this, AGP Sahil Trivedi, appearing on behalf of the respondents-state submitted that the impugned orders did not require to be interfered with and that it cannot be stated that the petitioner was in actual need of an arms license or there was any threat to him.

The Court observed that no adverse material against the petitioner was found in the reports submitted by the District Superintendent of Police.

The Court also noted that the District Magistrate rejected the application for an arms license by observing that the law and order situation in Devbhumi Dwarka was satisfactory and opined that the petitioner can carry out his business activities through any ATM or core banking and all the business transactions can be done through cheque if such transaction involves an amount of more than Rs.5,000/-

It was further opined that there was nothing to show that there was any personal enmity to the petitioner and that there was no past incident with regard to theft of his goods.

The Court while referring to the provision of Section 14 of the Arms Act held "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."

"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 court noted.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate and Additional Secretary (Appeals) were quashed and set aside.

Click here to read/download the order



Gujarat High CourtArms ActWrit PetitionJustice A.S. Supehia

Ashish Shaji