MANUBHA KHETUBHA JADEJA vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

PDF · subscribers
SCA/6611/2018HC GujaratGJHC24024235201801 August 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the grounds on which the Licensing Authority refused the license did not form part of Section 14 of the Arms Act. Specifically, the ground of an unsubstantiated income tax return was not a valid reason for refusal. The court also noted that the Licensing Authority's finding that the petitioner lacked sufficient knowledge for handling a firearm was contradicted by the petitioner's submission of a training certificate. Furthermore, the court observed that while an incident of loot at a petrol pump, where the petitioner was a partner, indicated a cause for self-protection, these grounds were not addressed by the authorities in their orders. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the License Issuing Authority to reconsider the application afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing and considering relevant documents. The petition was allowed to this extent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manubha Khetubha Jadeja, sought a firearm license. His application was initially rejected by the District Magistrate, Kutch Bhuj, on March 18, 2014. This decision was confirmed by the Joint Secretary Appeals, Home Department, on March 6, 2018. The petitioner challenged these orders through a Special Civil Application. He argued that the reasons for rejection were not germane to the cause and did not align with the grounds enumerated in Section 14 of the Arms Act. He highlighted his public life, including being the elected Chairman of APMC and head of social organizations, as a basis for his requirement. The revenue contended that the license issuing authority had suggested alternative provisions for crop protection if that was the requirement.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the grounds for rejecting the firearm license application are germane to the cause and enumerated in Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's arguments: - The grounds cited by the authorities for rejection were not relevant to the petitioner's stated need for a firearm license. - The reasons for rejection did not fall within the grounds specified in Section 14 of the Arms Act. - The negative police opinion lacked specific details and the petitioner was not provided with a copy. - The judgment in SORAB JEHANGIR BAMJI V/S STATE OF GUJARAT TROUGH JOINT SECRETARY (2011 (3) GCD 2621) was relied upon, stating that a license should ordinarily be granted if public peace or safety is not threatened. Revenue's arguments: - The license issuing authority suggested that if the requirement was for crop protection, separate provisions were available for such applications.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/SCA/6611/2018 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6611 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-

================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? No ================================================================ MANUBHA KHETUBHA JADEJA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MS RAWAL FOR MR ASHISH H SHAH(2142) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ADITYA JADEJA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1, 2, 3 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

Date : 01/08/2019 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. RULE. Learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. This petition is challenging the order dated 06.03.2018 by the Joint Secretary Appeals, Home Department in Arms Appeal No.203-2014 by which an order dated 18.03.2014 passed by Page 1 of 4

C/SCA/6611/2018 JUDGMENT the District Magistrate, Katchch Bhuj in Arms Application no.ARMS/S.R.35/2013 came to be confirmed. By the aforesaid orders, arms license application applied for by the petitioner came to be rejected. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the ground mentioned by both the authorities are not germane to the cause as the petitioner in his application and also the documents annexed therein, was able to point out the requirement of the firearm license, more particularly when the petitioner himself was in public life as elected Chairman of the APMC and also head in several other social organizations. 4. It is also submitted that the reasons mentioned for rejecting the application are not the reasons which are enumerated in Section 14 of the Arms Act. 5. Learned advocate thereafter relies upon the judgment of this Court in case of SORAB JEHANGIR BAMJI V/S STATE OF GUJARAT TROUGH JOINT SECRETARY reported in 2011 (3) GCD 2621, wherein it is pointed out that as the authority has not come to the conclusion that giving of license would result in disturbance of public peace or safety then ordinarily, the license ought to have been granted. In the judgment cited the only ground for refusal was only the age factor. It is submitted that in the instant case also, though one of the reasons is of Page 2 of 4

C/SCA/6611/2018 JUDGMENT negative opinion given by the Police, however, no details have been furnished as to in what regard, the negative opinion was given. The copy of negative opinion of the concerned Police Authority is also not made available to the petitioner. 6. Learned AGP opposing the petition submits that the license issuing authority has mentioned in the order that if the requirement of the firearm license is for the purpose of crop protection then separate provisions are available for which it will be open for the petitioner to make such application. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the documents on record, it appears that the applicant has brought to the notice of the License Issuing Authority about his social status as well as his involvement in public life, especially being appointed as Chairman of APMC. Over and above, it was brought to the notice that the petitioner was holding several posts in the the Kutch District Consumer Protection Society, Seva Bharti Foundation, Kutch District Sales Committee and Kutch District Cooperative Society at Bhuj. The documents along with the petition also reveal that the petitioner is trained in handling of the firearm and has produced certificate to that effect. 8. The submission of learned advocate deserves consideration inasmuch as, the ground on which the Licensing Authority has Page 3 of 4

C/SCA/6611/2018 JUDGMENT refused the license, does not form part of Section 14 of the Arms Act, which enumerates the reasons for which the license could be refused. In the instant case, the ground for refusing grant of the license is an income tax return which was not substantiated by any documents. Moreover, the Licensing Authority has also held that nothing is on record to show that the petitioner was having enough knowledge for handling of firearm license. The perusal of the order of the Secretary indicates that it was brought to the notice of the Secretary that there was an incident of loot at one Ashapura Petrol Pump, wherein the petitioner is one of the partners and therefore, a cause for self protection did exist. However, all these grounds, the License Issuing Authority and the Secretary, did not mention in their order and dealt with the same. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the matter is relegated back to the License Issuing Authority to consider the application of the petitioner for firearm license a fresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing and placing relevant documents on record. 10. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. Sd/- (A.Y. KOGJE, J) URIL RANA Page 4 of 4

More judgments on Section 14

All 685 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →