MAHENDRASINH DILUBHA PARMAR vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

SCA/7895/2019HC GujaratGJHC24026623201926 April 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the reasons cited by the Revisional Authority for rejecting the firearm license application were not sufficient. The Court noted that the initial rejection by the license issuing authority was on the ground of the petitioner's absence during a hearing, a reason not put forth by the petitioner. The Revisional Authority's grounds, such as the insufficiency of evidence of convictions and the nature of the petitioner's profession, were deemed inadequate for rejection. The Court directed the petitioner to make a fresh application to the license issuing authority, which should be considered on its merits and in accordance with the law, without prejudice from previous decisions. The petition was thus partly allowed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahendrasinh Dilubha Parmar, an Advocate and former Assistant Government Pleader, applied for a firearm license for self-protection. He argued that his work involved contesting cases against criminals, necessitating the license. His application was initially rejected by the license issuing authority on 24.09.2015, reportedly due to his absence during a hearing. Subsequently, the Joint Secretary, Home Department, rejected his appeal via an order dated 20.12.2018. The appellate authority cited that the petitioner had not faced any immediate danger and that the profession of an advocate is not inherently dangerous. The petitioner challenged these orders before the Gujarat High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the rejection of the firearm license application by the respondents was based on sufficient and relevant grounds, considering the petitioner's profession and past role as Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor. Assessee's Contentions (Petitioner): The petitioner argued that his application was rejected on irrelevant considerations and mere presumptions. He contended that the authorities failed to consider his appointments as Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor, and the fact that he had contested several litigations against criminals. The rejection was based on the assumption that he had not faced any problems so far and that his profession as an advocate is not dangerous, which he argued was an arbitrary assessment. Revenue's Contentions (Respondents): The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions. However, it notes that the Revisional Authority found the evidence produced by the petitioner (orders from 6-7 cases where accused were convicted) insufficient. The Revisional Authority also considered the petitioner's income tax returns showing income from both advocacy and agriculture, concluding that the petitioner was not facing grave danger and that the profession of an advocate is not dangerous.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/SCA/7895/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7895 of 2019 ================================================================ MAHENDRASINH DILUBHA PARMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ================================================================ Appearance: MR V B MALIK(5071) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 UMARFARUK M KHARADI(8155) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS VRUNDA C SHAH, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

Date : 26/04/2019

ORAL ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the orders dated 20.12.2018 and 24.09.2015 passed by the respondents No.1 and 2 respectively. The subject matter pertains to fire arms license. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that for the purpose of self protection, the petitioner had applied for a fire arms license contending inter-alia that the petitioner, an Advocate by profession, had contested several matters against criminals in his capacity as Assistant Government Pleader and for that purpose, he requires a fire arm. However, such an application was initially rejected by the license issuing authority against which an Appeal came to be filed being Fire Arms Appeal No.366/2016. Page 1 of 3

C/SCA/7895/2019 ORDER 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the various orders passed by the State giving appointment to the petitioner as Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor from time to time. 4. It is submitted that without considering the aforesaid, on whims, the application is rejected firstly by the License issuing authority and thereafter by the Joint Secretary, Home Department by the impugned order dated 20.12.2018. It is submitted that while rejecting the application irrelevant considerations are mentioned and merely on presumption that so far the petitioner has not faced any problems, his application is rejected. It was also held that the petitioner was not in a profession which can be termed as a dangerous profession. 5. I have considered the submissions canvassed and perused the documents on record. It appears that from time to time, the petitioner has been appointed as Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor by an order dated 18.02.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner has contested several litigations on behalf of the State in the year 2016 also and the petitioner was appointed as such. From the record, it appears that the only reason given by the Revisional Authority is that the evidence produced by the petitioner in the form of orders are not sufficient. It is stated that the orders of 6-7 cases are produced wherein the accused persons have been convicted. The Revisional Authority has taken Page 2 of 3

C/SCA/7895/2019 ORDER into consideration the annual Income Tax Returns for the year 2018 – 2019 which shows the income from the profession as an Advocate as well from agricultural activities. After that the Revisional Authority has proceeded to hold that the petitioner is not facing any grave danger to his life and that the profession of an Advocate cannot be considered to be a dangerous occupation. 6. In the opinion of the Court, the reason cited by the Revisional Authority cannot be said to be sufficient one for rejecting application of the petitioner the Fire Arms License. Moreover, all these grounds have not been put before the petitioner as the license issuing authority by an order dated 24.09.2015 has rejected the application on account of absence of the petitioner on the date on which the matter was placed for hearing. 7. In view of the aforementioned facts as recorded, the Court is of the view that the petitioner be directed to make a fresh application before the License issuing authority, and the same be considered on merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that the previous decision of the authority may not come in the way of the fresh application that may be preferred by the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands partly allowed. Direct Service is permitted. Sd/- (A.Y. KOGJE, J) Caroline Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →