In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 352 of 2022 – GUJ HC – Revoking arms license on ground that applicant has received no threat and there is no incident of assault on him is absolutely illegal, outside scope of section 17(3) of Arms Act: Gujarat HC Justice A S Supehia [27-06-2022]

Read Order: KHANJI MOHAMMAD SAIYED GULAMRASOOL v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 

LE Correspondent

Ahmedabad, July 2, 2022: While setting aside an order passed by an Additional District Magistrate (ADM) revoking the arms licence of a man, the Gujarat High Court has held as “irrelevant”, “absolutely illegal” and outside the scope of the Arms Act the grounds that there is no threat to the applicant or incident of assault on him and that he can use his telephone to call the police for protection when necessary.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice A S Supehia was hearing a petition seeking quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the respondent ADM pursuant to which the license of fire arm of the petitioner was revoked.

The Bench noted that in the present case the license was revoked on two “irrelevant” grounds: (1) the applicant has not received any threat and there is no incident of any assault on him, and (2) there is availability of telephone and he can call for police protection as and when necessary.

“Thus, the revocation of the license on the two grounds as mentioned hereinabove, is absolutely illegal and de hors the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act. The reasons for refusal of a licence should have a nexus and should be in context with the provisions of the Act and the license cannot be revoked on irrelevant consideration,” the Bench observed.

“A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that while passing the same and revoking the license of the petitioner, the authority has not even remotely thought fit to examine the entire issue and to give a finding as to whether any of the conditions mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act (sic),” the Bench noted.

The High Court remitted the matter to the ADM, the sole respondent in the case, for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner in terms of the orders passed by this Court.

“Appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order,” the Bench directed.