Applicants worthy enough can obtain Arms license for Self-Protection: Gujarat High Court
This particular decision is upheld by the High Court of Gujarat through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA in the case of Devshibhai Raydebhai Gadher v. State of Gujarat (R/Special Civil Application No. 13499 of 2021).
Facts:
The instant petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the orders passed by the District Magistrate rejecting the license under the Arms Act, 1959 (“the Arms Act”) for self-protection and order passed in appeal by the Additional Secretary Home Department in State Government confirming the previous order. The petitioner had applied for obtaining arms license for self-protection under the provision of the Arms Act with all the necessary documents. Nothing adverse had been found against the petitioner in the reports prepared by District Superintendent of Police and Mamlatdar which was sought by respondent 2.
Arguments and Judgement:
Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that both the authorities have not appreciated the true facts of the case and the reports issued in favour of the petitioner, while rejecting the application of the petitioner. It was also asserted by him that the petitioner needed the arm since he dealt with the mining business and he was also doing contract business, which required lot of travelling with cash.
The Court noted that nothing adverse regarding his involvement in any of the illegal activities or with regard to his character had been opined in the reports. The Court observed that 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, 1959 which pertains to the refusal of the license.
The Court while allowing the writ petition stated that it is not the case of the State authorities that the petitioner has been found not worthy of the license on the grounds mentioned under Section 14 of the Arms Act. The grounds of rejection nowhere indicate that the petitioner was not entitled for the arms license and he was treated to be unfit for the license under the Arms Act. Respondent 2 was directed to issue license to the petitioner pursuant to the application.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of Best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
Judgement reviewed by – Arvind Roshan