The central legal point established is that the refusal of an arms license based on age criteria, without alignment with the grounds specified in Section 14 of the Arms Act, is illegal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the respondent-State.

2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the District Magistrate and the order dated 01.04.2021 passed by the Home Department rejecting the request of the petitioner to grant him the arm license.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1. The petitioner joined the police service as a Head Constable on 08.12.1980. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 2009 and thereafter, he was promoted as Police Sub Inspector in the year 2017. He retired from service on 30.09.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for grant of license along with the documents under the Arms Act, 1959 (for short “the Act”).

4. Learned advocate Mr.Archit Jani appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the opinions of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Morbi were also called for, which were in favour of the petitioner. However, despite the aforesaid positive opinions, the respondent no.2 rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 30.11.2019 in view of the age of the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner is 62 years of age and there is no provision of law debarring a person from obtaining license due to his age criteria. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ahmed Mustafa Sunsara vs. District Magistrate & Collector, Banaskantha & Anr., 2021 (4) GLR 2630 and has submitted that the petitioner filed an appeal before the Secretary, Home Department, however, the same has also been rejected on two grounds (1) that there is no threat given to the petitioner by anyone and there is no incident of loot or theft has occurred with him; and (2) there is no need of providing the license, if the petitioner is retired as a police employee since there is no danger to his life, as he is not in service. He has submitted that the provisions of the Act, more particularly Section 14 thereof do not in any manner indicate that the license for arms can be rejected on the aforesaid two grounds and hence, the impugned orders may be set aside.

5. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned AGP Mr.Sahil Trivedi, while placing reliance on the affidavit filed by the respondent authority has submitted that since the petitioner has retired from service on 30.09.2018 and has rendered 38 years of service, there is no need for him to have a weapon. It is further submitted that since there is no threat to the life of the petitioner, he is not entitled to have license under the Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not received any threat from anyone and no untoward incident has happened to him, which would dis-entitle the petitioner for getting arm license under the Act.

6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

7. The petitioner has been denied arm license on the aforenoted reason first is the age of the petitioner, which has been considered by the respondent authority in denying the arm license. Nothing is produced on record to show any provision of law, which would dis-entitle a person from obtaining arm license looking to his age. The Coordinate Bench, after examining the provisions of the Act, has observed thus:-

“15. Thus from the aforesaid decision rendered by this Court, it is clear that the concerned petitioner was aged about 63 years at the relevant point of time and at the time of passing order, he was aged about 67 years and, therefore, this Court has observed that it cannot be said that the reason of self-protection is unjustified as older people would require to be more secure and to have a licenced firearm would provide such security. In the said case, the licence was denied to the concerned petitioner on the ground of age, whereas in the present case, the licence has been revoked by the