The central legal point established in the judgment is that the refusal of firearm license renewal must align with the conditions stipulated in the Arms Act, and reasons for refusal must be in accordance with the provisions of the law.

ORDER :

1. By way of present writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ-applicant herein is aggrieved by the order dated 17.1.2022 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 258 of 2020 and the order passed by the respondent No. 2 dated 16.6.2020 by which the writ-applicant’s fire arm license was refused to be renewed.

2. Brief facts germane for adjudication of the present writ-application read thus:

2.1 The writ-applicant herein was holding NP Bore Rifle and for that fire arm license came to be issued in favour of the writ-applicant before about 57 years. The said license came to be renewed from time to time under the provisions of the Arms Act. The said license expired on 31.12.2019, however prior to expiry on 23.12.2019 the writ-applicant preferred an application for renewal of the said license. The respondent No. 2 by impugned order dated 16.6.2020 refused to renew the license.

2.2 Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the respondent No. 2 refusing to renew the license the writ-applicant herein preferred an appeal under the provisions of Section 18 of the Arms Act. The respondent No. 1 confirmed the order dated 16.6.2020 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the appeal preferred by the writ-applicant herein came to be rejected by order dated 17.1.2022 passed in Appeal No. 258 of 2020.

3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.1.2022 passed by the respondent No. 1 as referred above the writ-applicant herein is constrained to approach this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) Admit this petition.

(B) Allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Appeal No. 258 of 2020 and thereby quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent no. 2 dated 16.06.2020 by which the petitioner's fire arm license was refused to renewal.

(C) Allow this petition by directing the respondent no. 2 to renew the fire arm license of the petitioner forthwith.

(D) Grant the interim relief by staying implementation, operation and execution of the order passed by the respondent no. 1 in Appeal no. 258 of 2020 dated 17.01.2022 and also by staying the execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 16.06.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2, pending admission and till final disposal of this petition.

(E) Award the cost throughout.

(F) Grant such other and further relief/s which may deem fit to this Honourable Court in the interest of justice.”

4. Mr. M.A. Kharadi, the learned advocate appearing for the writ-applicant herein submitted that the orders impugned passed by the respondent authority are against the provisions of the Arms Act. It was submitted that the writ-applicant herein has been refused renewal of arm license merely on the ground that the writ-applicant herein is aged about 82 years and there is no requirement of arm license to the writ-applicant herein.

4.1 Mr. Kharadi, the learned advocate also submitted that the aforesaid is against the well settled principles of law as laid down by this Court in various decisions. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Kanaksinh Mohansinh Mangrola vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2023 (Guj.) 33.

4.2 It was submitted that as such the writ-applicant herein never contravened any of the conditions while in possession of the said license and, therefore, the order passed by the respondent authority declining to renew the arm license possessed by the writ-applicant herein are required to be quashed and set aside.

5. Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State submitted that no error could be said to have been committed by the respondent authority in rejecting the renewal of arms license as prayed for by the writ-applicant herein. It was submitted that the respondent authorities have passed the order impugned considering the provisions of Section 14(3) of the Act which empower the respondent authority to ref