ARVIND KANAJI JATHIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner herein has preferred the present petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dtd. 2/12/2020 passed by the respondent No.3 - District Magistrate in an application filed by the petitioner herein seeking fresh Arms license. The said application dtd. 11/12/2019 is duly produced at page 19 to the petition. The respondent No.3 rejected the said application seeking fresh Arms license by order dtd. 2/12/2020, which is duly produced at page 20 to the petition. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the District Magistrate - respondent No.3 herein, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal being No.478 of 2020 before the respondent No.2 herein, which came to be rejected by the appellate authority by the impugned order dtd. 3/4/2022 on the following grounds (true translation) :

(2.) Heard Mr. Nimesh M. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Niraj Sharma, learned AGP appearing for the respondents.

(3.) Mr. Nimesh M. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the reasons assigned by the respondent authorities concurrently are against the provisions of Sec. 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 and are also against the position of law as laid down by this Court. Reliance was placed on the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.485 of 2022. 3. Mr. Niraj Sharma, learned AGP appearing for the respondents, submitted that no error could be said to have been committed by the respondent authorities while passing the impugned orders. Mr. Sharma, learned AGP, submitted that both the authorities while passing the impugned orders took into consideration the reports by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kachchh -Bhuj, duly produced on record at page 66 and the report by the Police Authority, duly produced at page 123 as well as the report of Police Sub-Inspector, duly produced at page 125 to the petition. Mr. Sharma, learned AGP, placing reliance on the aforesaid, submitted that the orders impugned are just and proper and require no interference.