Remanded

Malik Mohamad Rasidkhan Jainkhan v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC23 Aug 2019SCA/12975/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special civil application challenged orders rejecting a firearm license application for the petitioner. The court noted positive opinions from local authorities and sufficient training evidence, found certain rejection grounds irrelevant, and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration with a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 24-08-2018 and 07-06-2019 were quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the District Magistrate to reconsider the application within three months after granting an o

Malik Mohamad Rasidkhan Jainkhan Vs State of Gujarat — Gujarat HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C/SCA/12975/2019 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12975 of 2019

¶3

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶4

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-

¶5

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

¶6

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be NO allowed to see the judgment ?

¶7

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO of the judgment ?

¶8

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

¶9

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

¶10

MALIK MOHAMAD RASIDKHAN JAINKHAN

¶11

Versus

¶12

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶13

============================================= Appearance:

¶14

MR. P. R. ABHICHANDANI with ASFAQMOHMAD N MALIK(8367) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

¶15

MR. ROHAN SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE NOT RECD BACK(3) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

¶18

Date : 23/08/2019

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

RULE . Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-state.

¶21

This petition is filed under Article-226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07-06-2019 passed by the

¶22

Page 1 of 3

¶23

C/SCA/12975/2019 JUDGMENT

¶24

Secretary, Home Department, Gandhinagar, in Appeal No. HAVD/3418/274/M by which the order of the Collector dated 24-08-2018 rejecting the fire arms license in favour of the petitioner was confirmed.

¶25

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that reasoning given by both the authorities are not germane to the cause. Moreover, the finding given by the Authority with regard to the financial transaction to be carried out through the Bank is also not relevant when the petitioner was able to make out on the basis of documentary evidence that the petitioner is also the Chairman of “Ranod Juth Seva Sahkari Mandali”, wherein the transaction was required to be carried out and being Office Bearer, the petitioner is required to carry out the transaction on behalf of such body.

¶26

He submitted that while deciding in the application, the respondent – Authority ought to have addressed to each and every ground raised by the petitioner more particularly when the local authorities have given positive opinion in favour of the petitioner.

¶27

Learned AGP opposed to the grant of petition and submitted that the ground for rejection that earlier father of the petitioner was holding license and after his death, fire arms license has been transferred in the name of brother of the petitioner, but the petitioner did not claim at the relevant time for issuance of any license.

¶28

Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is holding an important post in “Ranod Juth Seva Sahkari Mandali” and is responsible for financial transaction on behalf of the Seva Sahakari Mandali. The Bank statement of such body places on record at Page-25

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

C/SCA/12975/2019 JUDGMENT

¶31

indicates the volume of financial transaction involved. It is found that the District Magistrate in his order recorded that the Magistrate and Executive Magistrate has given positive opinion in favour of the petitioner for issuance of the fire arms license. Moreover, the documents produced on record before this Court, indicate that the petitioner is having sufficient training for use of fire arms. The grounds stated in the order by the Collector about the age of the petitioner being 60 years, does not appear to be relevant ground for rejecting fire arms license application.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid, the matter is remanded back to the District Magistrate, Patan and the order dated 07-06-2019 passed by the Secretary, Home Department, Gandhinagar, in Appeal No. HAVD/3418/274/M and the order of the Collector dated 24-08-2018 are quashed and set aside. The District Magistrate is now directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner by giving due regards to the documents on record within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order of this Court and grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶33

In view of the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.

¶34

Direct service is permitted.

¶35

(A.Y. KOGJE, J)

¶36

PARESH SOMPURA

¶37

Page 3 of 3

Malik Mohamad Rasidkhan Jainkhan v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malik Mohamad Rasidkhan Jainkhan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Makwana Narendrabhai Dhanabhai Vs Union of India

Gopi Dhirajlal Manvar Vs Sub Registrar, Birth and Death Registration Dept.

Bhavik Jagdishbhai Kotecha Vs State of Gujarat

Suresh Anantray Goswami Thru. Friend Shaileshsinh Maharajsinh Kushwah Vs the Commissioner of Police

Bharatbhai Boghabhai Dasa Vs State of Gujarat

Dilipkumar Kailashkumar Agrawal Vs State of Gujarat