Kantibhai Ramjibhai Mistri Vs State of Gujarat

C/SCA/12450/2018 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12450 of 2018

==========================================================

¶5

KANTIBHAI RAMJIBHAI MISTRI

¶6

Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT

¶7

==========================================================

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

MR BHAVESH J PATEL(6801) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR. RADHESH Y VYAS(7060) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR KM ANTANI, AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

¶12

Date : 10/01/2019

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

1.This application is filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India in which the
petitioner has prayed that the order dated
28.07.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 and
order dated 27.05.2018 passed by respondent No.1
be quashed and set aside.

¶15

2.Heard learned advocate Mr.Radhesh Vyas for
the petitioner and learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. Antani for the respondents.

¶16

3.Learned advocate Mr. Vyas appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner has
submitted an application for grant of licence
under the Arms Act, 1959 to the respondent No.2.
The respondent No.2, by an order dated
28.07.2014, rejected the request of the

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

C/SCA/12450/2018 ORDER

¶19

petitioner without assigning any reason.
Petitioner challenged the said order by filing
appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before
the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1
dismissed the appeal by impugned order dated
27.05.2018. While dismissing the appeal, the
respondent No.1 has also not properly considered
the submissions canvassed by the petitioner and
the documentary evidence produced by him.

¶20

4.Learned advocate Mr. Vyas submits that the
respondent No.2 has rejected the application of
the petitioner without assigning any reasons and
there is total non-application of mind on the
part of the respondent No.2 and therefore this
Court may quash and set aside the impugned orders
and matter be remanded back to the respondent
No.2 for deciding the issue afresh. In support of
his submission, learned advocate Mr. Vyas has
placed reliance upon the order dated 04.08.2016
passed by this Court in Special Civil Application
No.7033 of 2015 in the case of Ranchoodbhai
Hamirbhai Samand v. State of Gujarat.

¶21

5.On the other hand, learned Assistant
Government Pleader Mr. Antani has opposed this
petition and submitted that though respondent
No.2 has not assigned any reason while rejecting
the application, the respondent No.1, in appeal,
has considered the submissions canvassed by the
petitioner and has rightly observed that

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

C/SCA/12450/2018 ORDER

¶24

petitioner has failed to produce any concrete
material in support of his request for grant of
licence under the Arms Act. Learned Assistant
Government Pleader has placed reliance upon the
order dated 15.01.2014 rendered by the Division
Bench of Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal
No.62 of 2014, wherein the Division Bench of
Allahabad High Court has observed that the
maintenance of law and order and public peace and
safety is the responsibility of the State. The
grant of a licence for a firearm is governed by
the licensing provisions which are contained in
the Act. A citizen cannot assert a right to hold
a firearm. He, therefore, submitted that this
Court may not entertain this petition.

¶25

6.Having heard the learned advocates appearing
for the parties and having gone through the
material produced on record, it transpires that
the application of the petitioner came to be
rejected by the respondent No.2 without assigning
any reason. He has only observed that there is no
valid reason for grant of licence of firearm to
the petitioner and therefore the application of
the petitioner is rejected. In appeal, though the
petitioner has pointed out why the licence of
firearm is required, the request of the
petitioner is not entertained on the ground that
for grant of firearm licence for self protection,
the petitioner has to objectively establish such
requirement. However, petitioner has failed to

¶26

Page 3 of 6

¶27

C/SCA/12450/2018 ORDER

¶28

produce any material in support of his
submission.

¶29

7.From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that
the respondent No.2 has not properly considered
the submissions canvassed by the petitioner and
without assigning any reason, the request of the
petitioner was rejected. In the case of
Ranchoodbhai Hamirbhai Samand (supra), this Court
has observed in para 13 as under:

¶30

“13. If the above referred police report
is perused, it appears that the Police Sub
Inspector,Thangadhwithinwhose
jurisdiction, the petitioner is residing,
opined in favour of the petitioner and has
also opined that the licence be issued for
his self protection. If the subsequent
report of the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Surendranagar is perused, which
discloses that the petitioner can deal
with the transactions by banking as well
as ATM facilities and the same is opined
by the District Superintendent of Police,
Surendranagar. Neither it is the case of
the respondent nor it has been observed by
the respondent that the petitioner is a
head strong person or he is having any
antecedents nor it has been observed by
the respondent that if the licence is
issued in favour of the petitioner, there
would be threats to public at large and
therefore, in my opinion, the authorities
below have rejected the application on the
extraneous ground under Section 14(b)(I)
(3) of the Act, which empowers the
authority to refuse to grant the license
for such reasons, which would make the
petitioner unfit for getting the licence

¶31

Page 4 of 6

¶32

C/SCA/12450/2018 ORDER

¶33

under the Act. However, I do not find any
just reason for rejecting the application
submitted by the petitioner. It is true
that getting license is not a right of an
individual as held by the Division Bench
of the Allahabad but the authority
concerned has to decide the case
considering the facts and circumstances in
each case. Therefore, I hold that the
orders passed by the authorities below are
unreasonable and without any substance.
Hence, the petition is allowed. The orders
dated 31.05.2012 passed by the District
Magistrate, Surendranagar refusing to
grant license for NP bore revolver /
pistol for his personal safety under the
provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 as well
as the order dated 10.03.2015 passed by
the Deputy Secretary, Home Department,
State of Gujarat is hereby quashed and set
aside. Rule is made absolute.”

¶34

8.In the aforesaid order, this Court has also
considered the fact that getting licence is not a
right of an individual as held by the Division
Bench of Allahabad High Court but the authority
concerned has to decide the case considering the
facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, this
Court has considered the judgment rendered by the
Division Bench of Allahabad High Court upon which
reliance is placed by learned Assistant
Government Pleader.

¶35

9.Keeping in view the aforesaid decision, if
the facts as discussed hereinabove are seen, this
Court is of the view that the impugned orders are
required to be quashed and set aside.

¶36

Page 5 of 6

¶37

C/SCA/12450/2018 ORDER

¶38

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.07.2014
passed by the respondent No.2 and order dated
27.05.2018 passed by respondent No.1 are set
aside. Matter is remitted back to the respondent
No.2 for deciding the application of the
petitioner afresh. From the material placed on
record, it is revealed that the petitioner
submitted an application on 01.06.2011 and the
respondent No.2 passed an order in July 2014 and
therefore the respondent No.2 is directed to
decide the application of the petitioner within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
this order, in accordance with law.

¶39

10.With the aforesaid observations and
directions, petition is disposed of. Direct
service is permitted.

¶40

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

¶41

Jani

¶42

Page 6 of 6

Kantibhai Ramjibhai Mistri v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kantibhai Ramjibhai Mistri v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunderlal Mangilal Jajoriya Vs Rekhaben Kundanlal Jajoriya

Piyush Bhojak Associate (Administrator) of Pradip Travels Vs Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Patel Nitaben Alias Nainaben Wife of Harishbhai and D/O Bhagubhai Dayalbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Mehulbhai Ballubhai Naik Vs State of Gujarat

Parmabai Varjangbha Ker Vs .

Narpatsinh Khumansinh Makwana Vs State of Gujarat