ASHOKKUMAR HARAKCHAND SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, namely, Ashokkumar Harakchand Shah, who is a Kenyan citizen and not a citizen of India is aggrieved against the rejection of his application for Arms Licence on the ground that the Arms Licence can be granted only to a person- who is a citizen of India, according to the provisions of Sec.13(3) of the Arms Act, 1959.

(2.) The petitioner has come with the case that though he is a Kenyan citizen he is settled in Vapi, District Valsad since 1983 and has been residing there and was residing at Vapi at the time when he applied for licence as also on the date when the present writ petition was filed. The petitioner says that he is an industrialist and has established a paper Mill known as 'Daman Ganga Paper Mill Ltd.", which was previously known as "Haria Paper Mills Ltd." in G.I.D.C., Vapi with an investment of Rs.500 lacs in an area of 8089 sq.mts. providing employment to 115 people. It is alleged that the turn over of the said Mill for the year is Rs.617.50 lacs and the production of the paper per year is 5415 M.T. It is also the case of the petitioner that in addition to the aforesaid Paper Mill, he has also established five more large scale industrial units in and around Vapi providing employment to 200 persons and has contributed to the industrial growth and industrial production of the State of Gujarat and is also providing employment in the Factory to number of workers in the State. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has recently completed a huge Project of establishing a Factory/plant for manufacturing writing and printing papers in a declared backward area of Dharampur on a land admeasuring about 354728 sq.mts. at a cost of Rs.50 crores, which has further generated employment for 250 persons and has also contributed to the industrial production and progress of the State of Gujarat besides providing employment and opportunities of employment, as stated above. The petitioner has averred that he proposes to manufacture 33000 M.T. of paper per year from the said Plant and the production in the said Factory has already started. Apart from the petitioner's role in the industrial development and industry, the petitioner also claims that he is associated with welfare and charitable activities in the Society through various educational institutions, Hospitals and other social and charitable organisations in and around the area of Vapi and that he is rendering substantial social service including monetary donations to the said Institutions and it has been stated that the petitioner has accepted Gujarat and India as his permanent home land though he was born at Nairobi in Kenya. It was also orally stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Joshi that petitioner's parents, grand parents and ancestors were all Indian and he got Kenyan citizenship because he was born at Nairobi in Kenya and he has chosen Vapi and surrounding area as his working place in the State of Gujarat, India since 1983 although he has not given up Kenyan citizenship. It has also been submitted that he has been going to Nairobi (Kenya) intermittently. The averments made in ground (m) at page 28 of the Special Civil Application read with the contents of the petitioner's application for licence Columns 10(a) and (b) and Column 11(a) at page 42-43 show that earlier he had applied for such a licence on 7.2.92 before the Addl. District Magistrate, Valsad for self protection and such licence, which was granted as Licence No.195-Vapi, G.I.D.C., was held by the petitioner till 31.12.92 when he voluntarily surrendered the same because according to the petitioner at that time it remained no more necessary for him to possess the arm looking to the law and order situation prevailing at that time at the place of his working in the Industries at Vapi.

(3.) The petitioner has come with the case that in the recent past i.e. since year 1997 and onwards, the industrialists, as a class, have started facing the threat to their life, liberty and property and realising the law and order situation and the sensitivity of the area of his occupation and working and the fact that in the course of business the petitioner has to frequently visit the backward areas in Dharampur, which is almost a jungle for his new Project and sometimes he has to travel during the night and reach there during night hours and being an industrialist, he felt that it was necessary for him to possess an arm for his own protection and self defence in the probable and apprehended situations of attack and/or danger. In this background the petitioner moved an application on 6.10.97 before the District Magistrate, Valsad to possess 0.32 bore Revolver or Pistol. This Application dated 6.10.97 was sent to the District Magistrate, Valsad by the petitioner with a covering letter dt.6.10.97. The petitioner also addressed a letter dt. 10.8..97 to the Ministry of Home, Government of Gujarat requesting them to recommend the District Magistrate to issue permission for the Arms licence. The petitioner also sent a letter dt.17.3.98 to the District Magistrate, Valsad inquiring about the status of his application and had also put on record that the petitioner had started a large Unit at Ambheti Village in a backward area of Dharampur and that he has to travel even at odd hours to visit the site and that his application be considered favourably as early as possible. The petitioner then received the order dt.20.3.98 from the District Magistrate,Vlasad whereby the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that under the provisions of S.13(3) of the Arms Act, the arms licence could be granted only to a citizen of India and since the petitioner was a Kenyan citizen, he cannot hold the arms licence. The petitioner then preferred an Appeal dt.23.4.98 as provided under S.18 of the Arms Act. The appellate authority by his order dt.16.5.98 rejected the Appeal without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. This Appeal was also rejected on the same ground of S.13(3) that the petitioner was not a citizen of India and that a person who does not hold the citizenship of India cannot hold arms licence. The petitioner then challenged the aforesaid order by way of filing Special Civil Application No.1889/98 which was decided by this Court on 26.4.99. This court by its judgment and order dt.26.4.99 set aside the order dt.16.5.98, as passed by the appellate authority, on the grounds and for the reasons set out therein and the Court remanded the matter back to the appellate authority with a direction that it shall admit the Appeal and shall, after calling the records of the licensing authority and affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, decide the Appeal. The appellate authority then fixed the Appeal for hearing as was directed by this Court. The petitioner filed his written submissions before the appellate authority and the matter was fixed for hearing before the appellate authority on 27.5.99. The petitioner attended on the said date of hearing through his advocate and the submissions, as were included in the written submissions, were urged before the appellate authority. This time also the Appeal was dismissed by the respondent No.2 vide his order dt.15.6.99 and the order, as has been passed by the District Magistrate, was confirmed. The petitioner's grievance is that while his submissions have been noted, the same have not been dealt with and the Appeal has been rejected only on the ground that under S.13 of the Arms Act, the provision is to grant licence only to a citizen of India and whereas the petitioner is a Kenyan citizen and not a Citizen of India, it was not necessary to interfere with the order dt.20.3.98, as had been passed by the District Magistrate,Valsad and accordingly the Appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority in exercise of powers under S.18 of the Arms Act.