JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms.Shrunjal Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Heard Mr.B.B.Naik, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Parthiv Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms.Shrunjal Shah, learned AGP for the respondent – State.

3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the respondent No.3 as well as the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No. 362 of 2016, by which, the application for granting an Arms License to the petitioner has been rejected.

4. Mr.B.B.Naik, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Bhatt, learned counsel, would submit that the orders under challenge are bad, inasmuch as, the grounds on which the same has been rejected have no nexus to the need of the petitioner for license. He would submit that the parameters for grant of license and refusal thereof have been set out in Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the reasons assigned by the authorities below do not fall within the frame work of the law so stated by several decisions of this Court. In support of his submission, Mr.Naik, learned Senior Counsel, would rely on a decision in the case of Ranchoodbhai Hamirbhai Samand vs. State of Gujarat., reported in 2016 JX(Guj) 1376, and on a decision rendered in the case of Bhupatbhai Bhikhabhai Mankad vs. State of Gujarat., reported in 2016 JX (Guj) 88.

5. Ms.Shrunjal Shah, learned AGP, would vehemently oppose the petition and support the order of the authorities, inasmuch as, in accordance with the submissions, the authorities have even found that there was no threat perception for the petitioner to seek a license. That the Income Tax Returns have been assessed and it has been found that in the past there has been no untoward incident for which it would be necessary for the petitioner to possess an arm license. Even otherwise, what the authorities have recorded was that the petitioner was involved in one criminal case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 463, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and reading the provisions of Sec.13 and 14 of the Act indicate that a licensing authority shall refuse to grant a license if the authority has reason to believe that which have been set out in sub-sections of Sec.14. In the case of Bhupatbhai Bhikhabhai Mankad (supra), this Court, after having set out the provisions of the Act has held thus:

“7 Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the order impugned passed in appeal, it clearly bornes out that the appellate authority, after narrating the contents, which are raised before it, has just reiterated the reasons, which are given by respondent No.2 while passing the order dated 28.6.2012. This Court in the case of Sorab Jehangir Bamji (supra) has examined and dealt with the contingencies under which a licence can be refused by the licensing authority as set out in Section 14 of the Act and has observed thus:-

15. The contingencies wherein a licence may be refused by the licencing authority are set out in Section 14, which reads as below:

14. Refusal of licences.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant-

(a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition;

(b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,-

(i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe-

(1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or

(2) to be of unsound mind, or

(3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or

(ii) wher