Allowed

Manubha Khetubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC1 Aug 2019SCA/6611/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Special Civil Application rejecting arms license refusal as unauthorized for reasons outside Section 14 Arms Act. Court noted missing police opinion details, irrelevant income tax ground, and lack of hearing. Writ remanded matter to licensing authority for de novo consideration with legal compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Case remanded to License Issuing Authority for fresh consideration of firearm license application in accordance with law and after hearing.

Manubha Khetubha Jadeja Vs State of Gujarat — Writ and Judicial Review | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/6611/2018 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6611 of 2018

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

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

¶6

======================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	========= No
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	No

¶7

================================================================ MANUBHA KHETUBHA JADEJA

¶8

Versus

¶9

STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance:

¶12

MS RAWAL FOR MR ASHISH H SHAH(2142) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ADITYA JADEJA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1, 2, 3

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

¶15

Date : 01/08/2019 ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

RULE . Learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

This petition is challenging the order dated 06.03.2018 by the Joint Secretary Appeals, Home Department in Arms Appeal No.203-2014 by which an order dated 18.03.2014 passed by

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

C/SCA/6611/2018 JUDGMENT

¶20

the District Magistrate, Katchch Bhuj in Arms Application no.ARMS/S.R.35/2013 came to be confirmed. By the aforesaid orders, arms license application applied for by the petitioner came to be rejected.

¶21

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the ground mentioned by both the authorities are not germane to the cause as the petitioner in his application and also the documents annexed therein, was able to point out the requirement of the firearm license, more particularly when the petitioner himself was in public life as elected Chairman of the APMC and also head in several other social organizations.

¶22

It is also submitted that the reasons mentioned for rejecting the application are not the reasons which are enumerated in Section 14 of the Arms Act.

¶23

Learned advocate thereafter relies upon the judgment of this Court in case of SORAB JEHANGIR BAMJI V/S STATE OF GUJARAT TROUGH JOINT SECRETARY reported in 2011 (3) GCD 2621, wherein it is pointed out that as the authority has not come to the conclusion that giving of license would result in disturbance of public peace or safety then ordinarily, the license ought to have been granted. In the judgment cited the only ground for refusal was only the age factor. It is submitted that in the instant case also, though one of the reasons is of

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

C/SCA/6611/2018 JUDGMENT

¶26

negative opinion given by the Police, however, no details have been furnished as to in what regard, the negative opinion was given. The copy of negative opinion of the concerned Police Authority is also not made available to the petitioner.

¶27

Learned AGP opposing the petition submits that the license issuing authority has mentioned in the order that if the requirement of the firearm license is for the purpose of crop protection then separate provisions are available for which it will be open for the petitioner to make such application.

¶28

Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the documents on record, it appears that the applicant has brought to the notice of the License Issuing Authority about his social status as well as his involvement in public life, especially being appointed as Chairman of APMC. Over and above, it was brought to the notice that the petitioner was holding several posts in the the Kutch District Consumer Protection Society, Seva Bharti Foundation, Kutch District Sales Committee and Kutch District Cooperative Society at Bhuj. The documents along with the petition also reveal that the petitioner is trained in handling of the firearm and has produced certificate to that effect.

¶29

The submission of learned advocate deserves consideration inasmuch as, the ground on which the Licensing Authority has

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

C/SCA/6611/2018 JUDGMENT

¶32

refused the license, does not form part of Section 14 of the Arms Act, which enumerates the reasons for which the license could be refused. In the instant case, the ground for refusing grant of the license is an income tax return which was not substantiated by any documents. Moreover, the Licensing Authority has also held that nothing is on record to show that the petitioner was having enough knowledge for handling of firearm license. The perusal of the order of the Secretary indicates that it was brought to the notice of the Secretary that there was an incident of loot at one Ashapura Petrol Pump, wherein the petitioner is one of the partners and therefore, a cause for self protection did exist. However, all these grounds, the License Issuing Authority and the Secretary, did not mention in their order and dealt with the same.

¶33

In view of the aforesaid, the matter is relegated back to the License Issuing Authority to consider the application of the petitioner for firearm license a fresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing and placing relevant documents on record.

¶34

The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

¶35

Sd/(A.Y. KOGJE, J)

¶36

URIL RANA

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Manubha Khetubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manubha Khetubha Jadeja 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

Sardarsinh Rupsing Baria Vs State of Gujarat

Chhotubhai Dhondu Nimje Vs State of Gujarat

Nawab @ Nabu Imransha Karimsha Diwan Vs State of Gujarat

Devendrasinh Juwansinh Jethva Vs State of Gujarat

Hirenkumar Chaturbhi Sohaliya Vs State of Gujarat

Bipin Harilal Gami Vs New Siddharth Apartment Owners Association