PREMGIBHAI ZAVERBHAI DABHI vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

C/LPA/524/2016 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 524 of 2016 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6950 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA ========================================================== 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 ? ========================================================== PREMGIBHAI ZAVERBHAI DABHI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s) ========================================================== Appearance: MS MITA S PANCHAL(530) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 15/07/2019

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA) 1. 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. Page 1 of 5

C/LPA/524/2016 JUDGMENT 2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Mita S. Panchal for the appellant and learned AGP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya for the respondent authority. 3. 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 Act”) 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. Page 2 of 5

C/LPA/524/2016 JUDGMENT 6950 of 2016 which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 4th May 2016. The said orders are impugned in this appeal. 4. 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 Page 3 of 5

C/LPA/524/2016 JUDGMENT 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. In light of aforesaid, therefore, even though we are in agreement with the observations made by learned Single Judge Page 4 of 5

C/LPA/524/2016 JUDGMENT 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. 8. 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. 9. Present order shall not be treated as precedent, as this order is passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 10. With aforesaid observation, the present appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.CHHAYA, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) K. S. DARJI Page 5 of 5