ORDER :

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Rohan Shah learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge in this petition is to the order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order dated 07.12.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Botad, by which, the petitioner’s application for Arms license has been rejected.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is maintaining his family and doing agricultural work and also doing vitrified tiles business at Morbi. He was issued an arms license in the year 2010. Renewal Application filed was rejected. The order was challenged by filing Special Civil Application No.173 of 2019. This Court by an order dated 14.02.2020 quashed the orders with a direction that on an application being made afresh, the same be considered. On a fresh application being made, by the impugned orders, the application has been rejected.

5. Mr.Harnish Darji learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders are bad inasmuch as the same have been rejected on the ground that the petitioner can deal with digital mode of payment. The other ground is on the basis of income tax returns and that there is no threat perception.

6. He would rely on the decision of this Court in case of Bhupatbhai Bhikhabhai Mankad v. State of Gujarat reported in 2016 JX (Guj) 88.

7. In case of Bhupatbhai Bhikhabhai Mankad (supra), the relevant paragraphs read as under:

“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) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence.

(2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property.

(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement. Section 14 sets out the grounds on which a firearm licence may be refused. The reason for refusal to grant a firearm licence to the petitioner is not that he is prohibited by any provision of the Act or any other law from holding a licence, or that he has asked for a licence in respect of a prohibited firearm, or is of unsound