Back
2011 (3) GCD 2621 (Guj)
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Abhilasha Kumari
Sorab Jehangir Bamji
Versus
State of Gujarat Through Deputy Secretary & Anr.
Special Civil Application No. 8691 of 2011—Decided on 29/08/2011
Arms Act, 1959 (Central Act 54 of 1959) — Sections 3, 9, 9(1)(a)(i), (ii), (iii), 13(1)(2), 13(2A), 13(3)(1), 13, 14, 14(1), 14(1)(b)(ii), 14(3), 15 & 18(1) — Grant of arms license — Application for — Refusal — Mainly on ground that he is 63 yrs of age and no reasonable grounds exist for grant of licence — Sustainability — Court held that there are valid, justified or legal grounds for rejecting application of petitioner and subsequently dismissing the appeal filed by him exist — The refusal is not supported by any provision of the Act and is therefore unreasonable, arbitrary and not in accordance with law.
Held :
Though Section 9 prohibits a person, who has not completed the age of 21 years, from acquiring, possessing or carrying a firearm or ammunition, there is no prohibition regarding a person of any age above the age of 21 years from doing so. The grounds for refusal of a licence under Section 14 do not apply to the petitioner in any manner. The discretion for exercise of power vested in the licencing authority by virtue of Section 13(2A) is to be exercised in relation to, and in the context of, the provisions of the Act, in a reasonable and rational manner. The reasons for refusal of a licence would have to have a nexus to, and be in context with, the provisions of the Act. Merely refusing to issue a licence for a reason not prohibited by the Act, such as being aged 63 years, is unjustified and not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. It is stated in the impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate and the State Government, that there are no reasonable grounds for grant of licence to the petitioner. On the contrary, in view of the relevant provisions of the Act, it is evident that the respondents have failed to show any valid grounds for refusal of the licence.
[Para 18]
This Court is of the view that there is no valid, justified or legal ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner, and for dismissing the appeal filed by him. The refusal of the respondents to grant a firearm licence to the petitioner is not supported by any provision of the Act and is, therefore, unreasonable, arbitrary and not in accordance with law. [Para 20]
Law Laid Down :
In absence of any valid ground for refusal of licence as provided in the Act, same can not be refused.
Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Rule. Mr. Rashesh Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided.
2. The challenge in this petition, preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is to order dated 16.12.2008, passed by the District Magistrate, Navsari, whereby, the application dated 04.08.2008, made by the petitioner for grant of an Arms licence has been rejected. The order dated 04.02.2011, passed by the State Government in Appeal No. 81/09, rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Magistrate, is also impugned.
3. The brief factual background of the case is as follows:
The petitioner is a Life Member of the Billimora Rifle Club, and has been awarded a number of certificates and medals in several Rifle Shooting competitions. The mother of the petitioner held an Arms licence for a .12 Bore DBBL Rifle upto her death, at the age of 87 years. The petitioner was the retainer of the said firearm, throughout the lifetime of his mother. After the death of the petitioner’s mother, the firearm was surrendered to the Police authorities. The petitioner made an application dated 04.08.2008, to Respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Navsari), for grant of a licence for the firearm in question, for the purpose of self-protection and for participation in Sports activities. Respondent No. 2, in exercise of power under Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 (“the Act” for short), rejected the application on the ground that the age of the petitioner is 63 years, and the reasons for which the petitioner has applied for grant of the licence, are not tenable. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order of the District Magistrate to the State Government, as provided in Section 18(1) of the Act. The appeal has been rejected by order dated 04.02.2011, passed by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, upholding the order passed by the District Magistrate, on the ground that no special reasons exist for grant of an Arms licence to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the above-mentioned orders, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present petition.
4. Mr. Jay M. Thakkar, learned advocate for M/s. S.G. Associates, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has been a member of the Rifle Club, Billimora, since the year 1988, and has participated in several Rifle Shooting competitions for which he has received many awards and certificates. The petitioner has applied for grant of an Arms licence mainly for the purpose of participating in Sports activities such as Rifle Shooting, and also for self-protection. Earlier, the mother of the petitioner was holding a licence for the same firearm, upto her death at the age of 87 years, and the petitioner was the retainer for the said firearm, throughout. The petitioner does not fall under any of the prohibitions contained in Section 9 of the Act, and just because he had attained the age of 63 years at the time of making the application, he cannot be refused an Arms licence on this ground. The respondents are not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner, as also the appeal preferred by him, on this ground. There is no provision in the Act that states that a licence cannot be granted to a person after he attains a particular age. It is further submitted that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and there is no negative report by the Police authorities, therefore, the refusal of the respondents to grant a licence to the petitioner, is unjustified and unreasonable. It is contended that as the impugned orders are not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, they may be quashed and set aside, and the petition, allowed.
5. In support of
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
