Hareshkumar Pranshankar Mehta Vs State of Gujarat

C/SCA/17710/2018 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17710 of 2018

¶4

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

¶5

HARESHKUMAR PRANSHANKAR MEHTA

¶6

Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)

¶7

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

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

ABHIMANYU RATHOD(7347) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
 for the Respondent(s) No. 2

¶10

MS ASMITA PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

¶13

Date : 25/02/2019

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

1.This petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India in which the petitioner
has prayed that the order dated 18.05.2016 passed
by respondent No.2 as well as order dated
30.10.2018 passed by respondent No.1 be quashed
and set aside.

¶16

2.Heard learned advocate Mr. Abhimanyu Rathod
for the petitioner and learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms. Asmita Patel for the
respondents.

¶17

3.Learned advocate for the petitioner submits
that petitioner is a businessman carrying on the
business of electric motor rewinding. He is also
Vice President of All India Anti Corruption and
Crime Preventive Council (Gujarat State), which

¶18

Page 1 of 9

¶19

C/SCA/17710/2018 ORDER

¶20

is a registered Trust. In the year 2001, licence
was granted to the petitioner by the Commissioner
of Police, Ahmedabad City under the provisions of
the Arms Act. Thereafter, in the year 2004, FIR
being C.R.No.I-93 of 2004 is registered against
the petitioner before Karanj Police Station.
Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner by the respondent No.2 as the FIR is
registered against him. Petitioner submitted his
reply. However, by order dated 03.11.2004,
licence issued in favour of the petitioner was
suspended/revoked. Petitioner, therefore, filed
appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before
the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority,
vide order dated 13.10.2006, quashed and set
aside the order passed by the respondent No.2 and
matter was remanded back to the respondent No.2
for taking fresh decision after giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶21

4.It is contended that thereafter no
proceedings were initiated by the respondent No.2
after the matter was remanded. Petitioner,
therefore, filed petition being Special Civil
Application No. 1033 of 2016 before this Court.
This Court, vide order dated 18.03.2016, directed
the respondent No.2 to decide the case of the
petitioner as per the remand order dated
13.08.2006. Respondent No.2, therefore, passed
order on 18.05.2016 and rejected the request of
the petitioner, against which, the petitioner

¶22

Page 2 of 9

¶23

C/SCA/17710/2018 ORDER

¶24

preferredpetitionbeingSpecialCivil
Application No.9449 of 2016 before this Court.
However, the said petition was withdrawn as the
petitioner is having alternative remedy of filing
an appeal before the Appellate Authority. After
withdrawal of the petition, petitioner filed an
appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act. The said
appeal is also rejected by the respondent No.1
vide order dated 30.10.2018. Petitioner has,
therefore, filed this petition.

¶25

5.Learned advocate Mr. Rathod submits that FIR
is filed against the petitioner under Sections
170, 171, 419 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code in
the year 2004. However, the said offence is not
under the provisions of the Arms Act. The
respondent authorities, without appreciating the
said aspect, rejected the request of the
petitioner merely because the said FIR is pending
against the petitioner, which is not permissible.
Learned advocate has referred the provisions
contained in the Arms Act for cancellation of
licence and also placed reliance upon the order
dated 12.06.2017 passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.290 of
2016. Learned advocate has referred paragraph 13
of the said order and contended that the issue
involved in the present case is squarely covered
by the aforesaid decision. He, therefore, urged
that this petition be allowed and impugned orders
be quashed and set aside.

¶26

Page 3 of 9

¶27

C/SCA/17710/2018 ORDER

¶28

6.On the other hand, learned Assistant
Government Pleader has opposed this petition and
submitted that it is not in dispute that FIR
being C.R.No.I-93 of 2004 is filed against the
petitioner. The said criminal case is still
pending and therefore the respondent authority
has rightly not entertained the request of the
petitioner. He, therefore, urged that this
petition be dismissed.

¶29

7.Having considered the submissions canvassed
by learned advocates appearing for the parties
and having gone through the material produced on
record, it transpires that the petitioner was
issued licence in the year 2001. However, the
proceedings were initiated against him for
revocation of the said licence on the basis of
the registration of the FIR filed against him in
the year 2004. If the impugned orders are
carefully examined, it is revealed that the
request of the petitioner is not entertained
merely because the criminal proceedings pursuant
to the said FIR are still pending.

¶30

8.At this stage, provisions contained in
Section 17 of the Arms Act is required to be
referred to.Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the
Arms Act provides as under:

¶31

“17.Variation, suspension and revocation
of licences.—
(1) xxx xxx

¶32

Page 4 of 9

¶33

C/SCA/17710/2018 ORDER

¶34

(2) xxx xxx

¶35

(3) The licensing authority may by order
in writing suspend a licence for such
period as it thinks fit or revoke a
licence—

¶36

(a)if the licensing authority is
satisfied that the holder of the licence
is prohibited by this Act or by any other
law for the time being in force, from
acquiring, having in his possession or
carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of
unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit
for a licence under this Act; or

¶37

(b) if the licensing authority deems it
necessary for the security of the public
peace or for public safety to suspend or
revoke the licence; or

¶38

(c) if the licence was obtained by the
suppression of material information or on
the basis of wrong information provided by
the holder of the licence or any other
person on his behalf at the time of
applying for it; or

¶39

(d) if any of the conditions of the
licence has been contravened; or

¶40

(e) if the holder of the licence has
failed to comply with a notice under sub-
section (1) requiring him to deliver-up
the licence.”

¶41

9.Thus, from the aforesaid provision, it is
clear that if the licencing authority deems it
necessary to suspend or revoke the licence for
the security of the public peace or public safety
or if there is any breach of condition of the
licence, licence can be suspended or revoked by
the licencing authority.

¶42

10.In the present case, the FIR is filed under

¶43

Page 5 of 9

¶44

C/SCA/17710/2018 ORDER

¶45

Section 170, 171, 419 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code and not connected with the Arms Act or there
is no allegation of breach of public peace or
public safety.

¶46

11.The Division Bench of this Court has
considered the aforesaid provision and thereafter
observed in para 13, 15 and 16 in the order dated
12.06.2017 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.290
of 2016 as under:

¶47

“13. Having considered the submissions
canvassed on behalf of the learned
advocates appearing for the parties and
having gone through the material produced
on record, it is clear that the respondent
No.3 issued Arms Licence No.BK/42/03 for
NP Bore Revolver Pistol in favour of the
petitioner on 11.08.2006. Thereafter, on
26.11.2007, FIR being CR No.I-110/2007
came to be registered against the
petitioner and other accused before
Palanpur Police Station for the offences
punishable under Section 409, 477(A) and
34 of the IPC as well as under Sections
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. Thus, on the basis of the
registration of the FIR against the
petitioner, the respondent No.3 after
issuance of the show cause notice, revoked
the licence of the petitioner on the
ground of public interest. The said order
was quashed by the Appellate Authority
i.e. the respondent No.2 and matter was
remanded to the respondent No.3. However,
when the matter was remanded back to the
respondent No.3, the respondent No.3
rejected the application of the petitioner
mainly on the ground that against the

¶48

Page 6 of 9

¶49

C/SCA/17710/2018 ORDER

¶50

licence holder, FIR came to be registered
for the offences punishable under the
provisions of the IPC as well as
PreventionofCorruptionActand
Superintendent of Police has given his
negative opinion and the trial of the said
criminal proceeding is still pending and
therefore it is not proper to restore the
licence of the petitioner. It is further
recorded by the respondent No.3 that the
petitioner has failed to produce any
documentary evidence in favour of his
claim that risk is involved in his
business and therefore Arms licence is
required. Thus, on the aforesaid grounds,
the respondent No.3 has not entertained
the application of the petitioner and once
again confirmed his order by revoking the
licence of the petitioner. The aforesaid
order came to be confirmed by the
respondent No.2 in the appeal and the
learned Single Judge has also dismissed
the petition.

¶51

xxxxxxxxx

¶52

15. From the aforesaid provision, it is
clear that the licensing authority is
empowered to suspend or revoke the licence
under the circumstances which are
enumerated in aforesaid sub-section (3) of
Section 17. As observed hereinabove the
respondent No.3 has placed reliance upon
the negative opinion given by the
Superintendent of Police and pendency of
the criminal proceedings against the
petitioner. However, the respondent No.3
hasnotconsidered whetherthe
registration of FIR against the petitioner
and pendency of criminal proceedings for
the offence of criminal breach of trust,
forgery and under the provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption Act in any way
affect the public safety, security or

¶53

Page 7 of 9

¶54

C/SCA/17710/2018 ORDER

¶55

public peace. Further, the respondent No.3
has also committed an error by observing
that the petitioner has failed to produce
any documentary evidence in favour of his
claim that risk is involved in his
business and therefore arms licence is
required. It is required to be noted that
the respondent No.3 was not for the first
time issuing the licence in favour of the
petitioner but he was exercising the
powers under Section 17 of the Act for
revocation of the licence and therefore
also the order passed by the respondent
No.3 is required to be set aside. From the
order passed by the respondent No.3 it is
not reflected that he has exercised the
powers under Section 17(3) (a) of the Act
on the ground that petitioner is unfit to
have licence. Thus, the submission
canvassed by learned AGP is misconceived.

¶56

16.Further, the respondent No.3 has
revoked the licence of the petitioner on
the basis of pendency of criminal
proceedings as discussed hereinabove.
However, arms licence of the coaccused of
the same FIR against whom the criminal
proceeding is still pending has been
restored by the Appellate Authority.”

¶57

12.In view of the aforesaid provision and in
view of the decision rendered by the Division
Bench of this Court, I am of the view that the
present case is covered by the aforesaid order.

¶58

13.In view of the above discussion, petition is
partly allowed. Impugned order dated 18.05.2016
passed by respondent No.2 as well as order dated
30.10.2018 passed by respondent No.1 are hereby

¶59

Page 8 of 9

¶60

C/SCA/17710/2018 ORDER

¶61

set aside. The matter is remitted back to the
respondent No.2 for deciding the issue afresh.
The respondent No.2 shall decide the request of
the petitioner within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of this order as the
proceedings were initiated against him in the
year 2004. It is clarified that while passing the
order afresh, respondent No.2 shall not consider
the pendency of criminal proceedings pursuant to
the FIR being C.R.No.I-93 of 2004 pending with
Karanj Police Station against the petitioner.

¶62

Direct service is permitted.

¶63

Jani

¶64

Page 9 of 9

Hareshkumar Pranshankar Mehta v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hareshkumar Pranshankar Mehta 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

Bhalaji Devrajji Thakor Vs State of Gujarat

Bharatkumar Somdas Prajapati through Poa Vikas Bharatbhai Prajapati Vs State of Gujarat

Amrutkunvarba Vakhatsinh Thakore through Poa Vikramsinh Kishorsinh Jhala Vs State of Gujarat

Hariom Shantilal Sharma Vs State of Gujarat

Rahiskhan Faridkhan Pathan Vs State of Gujarat

M/S. Astapad Corporation through Partner and Authorized Signatory Mr. Bhanubhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat