Allowed

Dharamvirsinh Jashvantsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC11 Jul 2022SCA/4620/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat quashed the rejection of an arms license application which was based solely on the applicant's absence at the hearing. The court directed the authority to decide the application afresh, ignoring previous invalid rejection grounds.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 07.10.2019 and 12.01.2021 were quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the District Magistrate for a fresh decision within eight weeks.

Dharamvirsinh Jashvantsinh Chavda Vs State of Gujarat — Service and Employment | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

C/SCA/4620/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4620 of 2021

¶4

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

¶5

DHARAMVIRSINH JASHVANTSINH CHAVDA

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

¶13

Date : 11/07/2022 ORAL ORDER

¶14

1.Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of
rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶15

2.The present writ petition has been filed
inter alia for the following relief:

¶16

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶17

3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the
Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar as well as
Executive Magistrate, Gandhinagar both have given
positive opinions for him for obtaining arms
license during the course of the proceedings
before the District Magistrate, Gandhinagar. The
said factum has also been recorded in the order
passed by the District Magistrate, Gandhinagar.
The petitioner was called for personal hearing on
two occasions however, on both the occasions, the
personal hearing could not be conducted due to
the busy schedule of the District Magistrate.
Again on 03.10.2019, the petitioner was called

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

C/SCA/4620/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2022

¶20

for personal hearing and on that day, he could
not remain present due to unforeseen
circumstances beyond his control and, therefore,
only on the ground that the petitioner was not
present on the third occasion, the application of
the petitioner came to be rejected vide order
dated 07.10.2019 bearing order No.DC/WL/
VASHI.9638/2019.

¶21

4.Learned advocate Mr.Popat appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that the District
Magistrate, Gandhinagar has rejected the
application of the petitioner only for the reason
that he could not remain present at the time of
hearing on03.10.2019. He has submitted that due
to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of
the petitioner, he could not remain present on
the scheduled date. It is further submitted that
the petitioner filed an appeal before the
appellate authority however, the same was also
rejected for the reason that the father of the
petitioner is already having 12 bore licensed gun
and hence, license is not required for self-
protection and the second reason is thatthere is
no incident of theft or loot has occurred with
him and it is not pointed out that he has
received any threat in this regard. It is
submitted that all the aforesaid reasons given by
the appellate authority are in fact against the
provision of Section 14 of the Arms Act. Thus, he
has submitted that the writ petition may be

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

C/SCA/4620/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2022

¶24

allowed and the impugned orders may be quashed
and set aside and the matter may be remanded to
the District Magistrate.

¶25

5.Learned AGP has submitted that since the
original order dated 07.10.2019 is passed in the
absence of the petitioner, the concerned
authority may be directed to hear the petitioner
afresh.

¶26

6.Heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties and also perused the documents
as pointed out by them.

¶27

7.It is not in dispute that the initial
application of the petitioner dated 01.02.2019
has been rejected by the District Magistrate,
Gandhinagar by the impugned order dated
07.10.2019 only on the sole reason that the
petitioner did not remain present personally
before him. The petitioner, being aggrieved,
filed an appeal before the respondent No.1 and
the same has been rejected by assigning the
aforementioned three reasons. One that the father
of the petitioner is having 12 bore licensed
guns. Second being no instance of theft or
robbery has been occurred and third is that no
personal threat has been given to him.

¶28

8.At this stage, it would be apposite to refer
to the provision of Section 14 of the Arms Act.
The same reads as under:

¶29

Page 3 of 5

¶30

C/SCA/4620/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2022

¶31

14. Refusal of licences.—

¶32

(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, licensing
authority shall refuse to grant—

¶33

(a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5
where such licence is required in respect of any
prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition;

¶34

(b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,—

¶35

(i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe—

¶36

(1) to be 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

¶37

(2) to be of unsound mind, or

¶38

(3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or

¶39

(ii) where the licensing authority deems it
necessary for the security of the public peace or
for public safety to refuse to grant such licence.

¶40

(2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant
any licence to any person merely on the ground that
such person does not own or possess sufficient
property.

¶41

(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a
licence to any person it shall record in writing the
reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person
on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any
case the licensing authority is of the opinion that
it will not be in the public interest to furnish such
statement.

¶42

9.The District Magistrate, while rejecting the
application of the petitioner as well the
appellate authority, while dealing with the
appeal of the petitioner has passed the orders
being oblivious to the provisions of Section 14
of the Arms Act, which pertains to the refusal of
the license. It is not the case of the State
authorities that the petitioner has been found
unworthy of the license on the grounds mentioned

¶43

Page 4 of 5

¶44

C/SCA/4620/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2022

¶45

under Section 14 of the Arms Act. The grounds, as
mentioned in the impugned orders, do not in any
manner indicate that the petitioner is not
entitled for the arms license and he is treated
to be unfit for the license under the Arms Act.

¶46

10.Thus, both the impugned orders dated
07.10.2019 passed by the District Magistrate and
dated 12.01.2021 passed by the respondent No.1
are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is
remanded to the District Magistrate for deciding
the application filed by the petitioner afresh
however, it is clarified that while deciding the
aforesaid application, the reasons assigned by
the appellate authority rejecting the appeal of
the petitioner shall be ignored. Necessary
decision shall be taken within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of writ of the
order of this Court.

¶47

11.The writ petition stand allowed. Rule made
absolute.

¶48

NVMEWADA

¶49

Page 5 of 5

Dharamvirsinh Jashvantsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharamvirsinh Jashvantsinh Chavda 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

Jatin Rajendra Parmar through Poa Rajendra Himmatbhai Parmar Vs State of Gujarat

Vilasben Dipakbhai Desai Vs State of Gujarat

Rashmiben Raghavbhai Dafda Vs State of Gujarat

Mansuri Mo. Muqim Munirkhan Vs Torrent Power Limited

Babubhai Ramjibhai Diwani Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

Ashfak Ismail Khatri Vs State of Gujarat