Allowed

Ranjitbhai Bhupatbhai Khachar v. Additional District Magistrate

Gujarat HC6 Jul 2022SCA/2526/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed orders rejecting a petitioner's arms license application for crop protection. The court held that past criminal offences where the petitioner was acquitted could not be a valid ground for refusal and directed the authorities to reconsider.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 18.08.2021 and 01.11.2021 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to be issued an arms license.

Ranjitbhai Bhupatbhai Khachar Vs Additional District Magistrate — Gujarat HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C/SCA/2526/2022 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2526 of 2022

¶4

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

¶5

RANJITBHAI BHUPATBHAI KHACHAR

¶6

Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

¶7

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

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

¶12

Date : 06/07/2022 ORAL ORDER

¶13

In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 18.08.2021 and 01.11.2021 passed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 respectively.

¶14

The brief facts of the case are as under:-

¶15

2.1. The present petitioner is a permanent resident of Botad and is agriculturist. He had applied for the Arms license for the crop protection as the petitioner is having 24 Vighas of land and is regularly cultivating over there. Some of the land where the petitioner is cultivating crops at Survey No. 620 + 625, Khata No. 378, admeasuring 1-29-50, at Village: Sundariyana, Taluka: Ranpur, Dist: Botad.

¶16

Learned advocate Mr.Dagli has submitted that the petitioner is a annual member of Botad District Rifle Club and has also procured training for using the gun and in this regard a certificate has been issued by Botad District Rifle Club dated 08.07.2021. It is submitted that the as the crops of the petitioner were destroyed by the wild animals that as Nilgay, Pig, the petitioner intended to apply for the license for crop

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

C/SCA/2526/2022 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2022

¶19

protection. It is further submitted that the respondent authority called for the opinions of Range Forest Officer and Police authority and the Range Forest Officer gave a positive opinion in favour of the petitioner and the police authority gave a negative opinion. Thus, he has submitted that considering these two opinions, the petitioner was not granted arm license for crop protection. It is further submitted that two FIRs were registered against the petitioner one in the year 2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 906(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”), Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act and Section 3(1) (10) under the Atrocity Act and the other offence was registered under Sections 307 and 333 of the IPC. It is further submitted that in both these offences the petitioner has been acquitted by the Trial court. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned orders are premised on the incorrect facts and hence, the same may be set aside.

¶20

Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Hardik Mehta has submitted that the impugned orders may not be set aside as the same are premised on the factual aspect that the petitioner was having some offence registered against him.

¶21

I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

¶22

It is not in dispute that while passing the impugned orders, the authorities have considering two factors for rejecting the application of the petitioner (1) for driving away the wild animals which, cause damage to the crops, the petitioner can use firecrackers and (2) that in past the petitioner has been embroiled in some criminal offences. So far as the first reason is concerned, the same appears to be illogical. It is not denied that the Range Forest Officer has in fact had given a positive opinion that the animals entered in his fields and destroyed the crops and the petitioner would require an arm license. The respondents are unable to controvert

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

C/SCA/2526/2022 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2022

¶25

the fact of giving positive opinion by the Range Forest Officer in favour of the petitioner vide a communication dated 31.07.2001. So far as the second aspect is concerned, it is not denied by the respondent that the petitioner has been already acquitted in the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 906(2), 114 of the IPC on 31.01.2011 and for the other offences, which were registered under Sections 307 and 333 of the IPC, he was acquitted on 27.09.2019.

¶26

Under the circumstances, since the present petitioner is already acquitted in the offences registered against him such aspect could not have been considered by the respondent authority while deciding the application of the petitioner dated 12.07.2021. Hence, the impugned orders dated 18.08.2021 and 01.11.2021 passed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 respectively are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner and accordingly, issue him arms license.

¶27

In case it is found that any criminal offence is registered against the present petitioner after 18.08.2021, which involves him directly, it will be open for the respondents to pass appropriate orders on his application dated 12.07.2021.

¶28

The present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

¶29

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)

¶30

ABHISHEK/69

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Ranjitbhai Bhupatbhai Khachar v. Additional District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjitbhai Bhupatbhai Khachar v. Additional District Magistrate

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

Sarjan Shashikant Patel S/O Sashikant Jayantilal Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Malek Yasinmiiya Imammiyan Vs State of Gujarat

Babulal Champaji Khatik Vs State of Gujarat

Piram Agritech Private Limited through Autho. Signatory Divya Sidhrajsinh Raol Vs Registrar of Companies

Hitesh Dineshchandra Shah Vs State of Gujarat

Patel Sandipbhai Shankarbhai Vs State of Gujarat