The refusal of an arms license must adhere to Section 14 of the Arms Act, ensuring no arbitrary denial absent valid concerns.

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia challenging the orders dated 25.07.2019 passed by the District Magistrate rejecting the license under the Arms Act, 1959 (“the Arms Act”) for self-protection and order dated 29.01.2021 passed in Appeal No.196 of 2019 by the Additional Secretary (Appeals), Home Department in State Government confirming the order dated 25.07.2019.

3. The petitioner applied for obtaining arms license for self-protection under the provision of the Arms Act, on 05.12.2018 with all the necessary documents. Thereafter, opinion of the District Superintendent of Police and Mamlatdar, Kalyanpur was sought by the office of the respondent No.2 and in their reports, nothing adverse has been found against the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 25.07.2019, the application of the petitioner has been rejected. An appeal filed against the said order is also rejected by the order dated 29.01.2021 by the appellate authority.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Oza appearing for the petitioner has submitted that both the authorities have not appreciated the true facts of the case and the reports issued in favour of the petitioner, while rejecting the application of the petitioner. He has placed reliance on the provision of Section 14 of the Arms Act and has submitted that the impugned orders are absolutely silent. He has also placed reliance on the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sorab Jehangir Bamji Vs. State of Gujarat Through Deputy Secretary , 2011 (3) GCD 2621 and has submitted that the impugned orders may be set aside. It is also asserted by him that the petitioner needs the arm since he deals with the mining business and he is also doing contract business, which requires lot of travelling with cash.

5. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned AGP Mr.Trivedi has submitted that the impugned orders do not require interference since the same are appropriately passed by the authorities. It is submitted that for the reasons assigned in the impugned orders, it cannot be stated that the petitioner is in actual need of arms license or there is any threat to him. Thus, he has submitted that the writ petition may be rejected.

6. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.

7. It appears that the petitioner had filed the application dated 05.12.2018 seeking license under the provision of the Arms Act. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the aforesaid application, the office of the respondent No.2 had sought for the opinions of the District Superintendent of Police and Mamlatdar, Kalyanpur with regard to any adverse material against the petitioner. Nothing adverse with regard to his involvement in any of the illegal activities or with regard to his character has been opined in the reports. It is the case of the petitioner that he needs license, as he is a contractor and also works in Agriculture Market Yard, in which the entire transactions are done in cash. Further, it is stated by the petitioner that he is also looking to the mining business of his cousin, who also holds the arms license.

8. The District Magistrate, Devbhumi Dwarka has rejected the application filed by the petitioner by assigning various reasons. It is mentioned therein that the law and order situation in Devbhumi Dwarka is satisfactory and the petitioner can carryout his business activities through any ATM or core banking and all the business transactions can be done through cheque, if such transaction involves an amount of