RAJSIBHAI MALDEBHAI ODEDARA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.11.2011 passed by respondent No.2 District Magistrate, Porbandar rejecting the application for licence of an arm filed by the petitioner under the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as well as the order dated 27.12.2012 passed by respondent No.1 the appellate authority Deputy Secretary of the State of Gujarat in Home Department in Arms Application No.684 of 2011, whereby the appellate authority has confirmed the order passed by respondent No.2 District Magistrate.

(2.) THE facts which can be culled out from the record of the petition are as under:2.1 The petitioner is a resident of Village Padardi, District Porbandar. The record reveals that the petitioner is Sarpanch and is also having occupation of agriculture and is also doing business as a Contractor. It appears from the record of the petition that the petitioner applied for a licence in the requisite form under the provisions of the Act on 28.2.2011. It is evident from the said application at AnnexureB to the petition that the petitioner applied for the arms licence for personal danger and selfprotection. The said application was considered by the respondent No.2 District Magistrate and relying upon the negative report given by the authorities namely SubDivisional Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer, respondent No.2 has rejected the said application.

(3.) MR . H.A. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of this petition and has contended that the authorities have wrongly rejected the application for licence filed by the petitioner. Mr. Dave, relying upon the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, submitted both the authorities have refused to grant licence on the grounds which are not provided under Section 14 of the Act and therefore, the impugned orders are perverse and are required to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that the authorities have also not examined the grounds for which the application was made by the petitioner and the impugned orders have been passed considering the reasons which are not germane and are totally dehors the application filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that while refusing, the petitioner is not even granted opportunity to see the socalled negative report on the basis of which the order of refusal is passed. It is contended that thus the petitioner has been denied the licence because of political rivalry and therefore, the impugned orders are exfacie, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Dave has relied upon the following judgments: