GUJARAT HIGH COURT: ABSENCE OF THREAT TO APPLICANT, NO GROUND TO REFUSE FIREARM LICENSE UNDER ARMS ACT.

The Gujarat High Court in the case Khanji Mohammad Saiyed Gulamrasool Versus. Additional District Magistrate observed in the recent case that the refusal of a firearm license under the Arms Act should have a nexus and it should be in the context of with respect to the provisions of the Act and on irrelevant conditions the license cannot be invoked.

The bench comprising of Justice AS Supehia further observed that the Applicant’s license may not be revoked by the authority merely because the Applicant had not received any threats or there was no incident of assault on him.

In the present case, it was observed that 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.

It was observed that the petitioner was holding a firearm license and the petitioner had sought renewal in the Arms Act, Moreover, the same was denied and the petitioner license was revoked on the ground stating that and there is availability of telephone and he can call for protection as and when necessary.

The Section 13 (Grant of licenses) and Section 14 (Refusal of licenses) of the Act, was referred by the petitioner and it was submitted by the petitioner that the grounds cited by the authority finds no mention in the Act.

It was submitted by the ASG that the petitioner was having an alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order by appealing before the Secretary, Home Department.

The bench observed that the Petitioner holding the license in 1997 was not a disputed fact. Thereafter, in relation with Section 17(3) of the Act, the Bench opined that the authority did not even ‘remotely thought fit’ to examine the issue in accordance with Sec 17(3) conditions.

The bench noted that the reasons for the refusal of a license should have a nexus and it should be in the context with the provisions of the Act and the license cannot be revoked on irrelevant consideration. However, the impugned order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the respondent authority deserves to be quashed and set aside as it is passed on absolute irrelevant grounds de hors the provisions of the Act.

Accordingly, the bench remitted the matter back for the consideration in accordance with law.