-
by sayum
01 October 2026 8:21 AM
The Gujarat High Court recently granted a writ petition challenging the District Magistrate's decision to reject the Petitioner's application for an arms license, ruling that he was not ineligible under Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Section 14 outlines the "Refusal of Licenses" provisions, including when the licensing authority deems it necessary for the protection of the public peace or public safety to deny a license. A license may also be denied to a person of unsound mind or for any other reason deemed unfit.
The District Magistrate, while rejecting the petitioner's application, and the appellate authority, while hearing the petitioner's appeal, issued their orders without regard for the provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act, which govern the refusal of a license. The State authorities have not determined that the petitioner is ineligible for a license for the reasons listed in Section 14 of the Arms Act. The grounds stated in the challenged orders do not in any way indicate that the petitioner is ineligible for an arms license and that he is deemed ineligible under the Arms Act."
The Petitioner submitted a complete application for a license to carry a firearm for self-defense in accordance with the Act. The respondent then solicited the opinion of the District Superintendent of Police and Mamlatdar of Kalyanpur, neither of whom found anything adverse against the Petitioner in their respective reports. The Petitioner's application was denied by the challenged order, as was his subsequent appeal.
The petitioner asserted that he requires the firearms due to his involvement in the mining industry and contracting, both of which require extensive travel with cash. While rejecting his application and subsequent appeal, the Petitioner argued that the authorities had not taken into account the true facts of the case and the favorable report. He also argued that the challenged orders are completely silent regarding the provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act, which govern the denial of a license.
The Respondent's attorney argued that the challenged orders were properly issued and do not require intervention. Citing the reasons stated in the order, it was argued that the Petitioner posed no threat and had no actual need for a firearm. The order stated that the law-and-order situation in the area of the Petitioner's operation was satisfactory and that he could conduct his business transactions using an ATM, core banking, or checks instead of cash. The order opined that there was no evidence that the Petitioner had any enemies or that there had been a previous attempt to steal his property.
The Court noted that in response to the Petitioner's request, the District Superintendent of Police and Mamlatdar's opinions were sought, and no adverse information regarding his activities or character was discovered. The Court noted that in the challenged order, the District Magistrate failed to take into account the favourable report for the Petitioner. The Court took note of the appellate court's rejection of the appeal for the same reasons as the District Magistrate.
The court granted the petition, quashing the challenged orders and ordering the respondent to issue the petitioner a license. The Court also clarified that the District Magistrate may refuse to grant the petitioner a license if, after the issuance of the challenged order, he becomes aware of any incident that directly implicates the petitioner in an offence.
D.D:13 JUNE 2022
DEVSHIBHAI RAYDEBHAI GADHER Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
