Back
2019 Supreme(Guj) 724
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
Bhupatbhai Nanubhai Algotar and Ors - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and Ors - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 19595 of 2018
Decided On : 15-10-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.M. Tirmizi
For the Respondent: Dhawan Jayswal, Assistant Government Pleader
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226 and 227 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 14 – Fire arm license – Cancellation of Licenses of the petitioner on ground that one FIR is registered against the petitioners – Dismissal of Appeal – Challenged – Petitioners were holding two separate valid license since 12 years which were regularly renewed from time to time lastly respectively bearing Weapon License – Petitioners were cancelled only on ground that petitioners were involved in one Criminal Case under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code due to family dispute – case of the petitioners that though the petitioners submitted copy of the order of the acquittal of the petitioners and though the respondent no. 1 taken into account the fact of acquittal, rejected the appeal of the petitioners without assigning any reason as to how the provisions of Section 14 of Act, 1959 would come into play for refusal of fire arm license to the petitioners – Petitioners submitted that once the petitioners are acquitted the very base of cancellation of the fire arms license has vanished, therefore, respondent no. 1 could not have rejected the appeal of the petitioners in absence of any of the ingredient, as stipulated in Section 14 of the Act being present or found by the appellate authority for confirming order of cancellation of license – Held, Only reason for refusal to grant the license by the appellate authority is to maintain the public peace – However, in the facts of the case, there is nothing on record that to show that the petitioners are involved in any other criminal offence or are dangerous persons so as to deny them the fire arm license – In view of the above, the impugned order passed in Arms Dispute Application and order passed by the District Collector and Magistrate, are required to be quashed and set aside. The petitioners are required to file fresh application for issuance of the fire arm license under the provisions of Arms Act, 1959 before the respondent no. 2-Collector and District Magistrate, who shall examine the application to be filed by the petitioners denovo, as provided under Section 13 of the Act without taking into consideration the past events, as the petitioners have already been acquitted in the criminal case – Petition disposed of.
ORDER :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged order dated 30th July, 2018, passed by the Joint Secretary, Home Department, dismissing the appeal being No. 450 of 2015 and order dated 18.06.2015 passed by the District Collector and Magistrate, Ahmedabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were holding two separate valid license since 12 years which were regularly renewed from time to time lastly renewed having validity up to 31.12.2014 and 17.01.2015, respectively bearing Weapon License No. 137/BVL and 72/BVL.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that one Kanubhai Gokadbhai Algotar filed an application dated 20.09.2014 requesting the Collector and District Magistrate, Ahmedabad to cancel the licenses of the petitioners on the ground that one FIR is registered against the petitioners.
4. The respondent no. 2, after considering the complaint against the petitioners, cancelled the fire arm license issued to the petitioners by order dated 18.06.2015.
5. The petitioners, thereafter, challenged the said order before the respondent no. 1 by preferring an appeal under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 on the ground that the petitioners have been acquitted by the Competent Court in respect of the FIR which was filed against them.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that though the petitioners submitted copy of the order of the acquittal of the petitioners and though the respondent no. 1 taken into account the fact of acquittal, rejected the appeal of the petitioners without assigning any reason as to how the provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short the "Act") would come into play for refusal of fire arm license to the petitioners.
7. Heard Mr. M.M. Tirmizi, learned advocate for the petitioners.
8. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that once the petitioners are acquitted the very base of cancellation of the fire arms license has vanished, therefore, respondent no. 1 could not have rejected the appeal of the petitioners in absence of any of the ingredient, as stipulated in Section 14 of the Act being present or found by the appellate authority for confirming order of cancellation of license.
9. Learned advocate for the petitioners relied upon the following decisions (i) Bhupatbhai Dahabhai Khachar vs. State of Gujarat, passed in Special Civil Application No. 10045 of 2013 [2014 SCC OnLine Guj. 2015] (ii) decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok S/o. Dayaram Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 984 of MANU/MH/0049/2018 (iii) decision of Patna High Court in the case of Vikas Narayan Sinha S/o. Late Shatrughan Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar & Ors. Passed in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction No. 6441 of 2017 (iv) decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kiritkumar Govindji Erda vs. State of Gujarat Passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 1539 of 2016.
10. He submitted that once the person is acquitted by the Competent Court, he loses the tag of being called accused, and therefore, on that ground, the fire arm license could not have been refused to the petitioners.
11. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Kumarbhai Laljibhai Malhotra vs. State of Gujarat [2007 (1) GLR 166] to contend that fire arm license cannot be refused on the ground of any possibility or apprehension.
12. On the other hand, Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned advocate for the respondent-State submitted that the appellate authority, after taking into consideration the order of acquittal as well as past history of the petitioners, has come to the subjective satisfaction that the issuance/renewal of the license in favour of the petitioners would amount to breach of public peace, and therefore, the appeal is rightly rejected.
13. Having regard to the submissions made by both the side, it has emerged that the fire arm license of the petitioners w
