Gujarat High Court
Vipulbhai Bhikhubhai Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 24 August, 2022
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
C/SCA/4780/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4780 of 2022
==========================================================
VIPULBHAI BHIKHUBHAI GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHUNESH C RUPERA(3896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. SAHIL TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 24/08/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the ld. District Magistrate, Surendranagar (Res. No. 3) dated 04.04.2020 and the Additional Secretary (Appeals), Home Department, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar (Res. No. 2) dated 01.01.2022 and further to grant appropriate relief with regard to continuation of licence of the bore revolver / pistol;
(C) Pending hearing and till final disposal of present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the orders passed by the ld. District Magistrate, Surendranagar (Res. No. 3) dated 04.04.2020 and the Additional Secretary (Appeals), Home Department, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar (Res. No. 2) dated 01.01.2022 and further to grant appropriate relief with regard to continuation of licence of the bore revolver / pistol;
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass such other and further orders deemed fit in the facts and Page 1 of 9 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:10:44 IST 2022 C/SCA/4780/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2022 circumstances of the case.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Bhunesh C. Rupera for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Sahil Trivedi for the respondent
- State.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an agriculturist and owner of joint agricultural land and he is also doing business of hotels and mining. He was having valid license of mining of sand and stone which was issued by the competent authority. In the year 2012, the petitioner made an application to the District Superintendent of Police, Surendranagar and vide aforesaid application dated 01.06.2012 requested him to provide him police protection. Similar applications seeking for police protection was once again made vide an application dated 19.01.2015. It is the case of the petitioner that time and again, the petitioner had received the threat for extortion his money in respect of his mining activities and therefore, lastly in the year 2020, once again the police protection was requested by the petitioner.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2012, the petitioner was given license to carry the fire arm. He applied for the Arm License in the year 2012 which was granted to the petitioner and ultimately the same was renewed from time to time and lastly, it was renewed upto 31.12.2020. However, learned District Magistrate, Surendranagar vide order dated 04.04.2020 cancelled the fire arm license given to the petitioner in the year 2012 on the ground that there are four offences registered against the petitioner, out of which pursuant to three Page 2 of 9 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:10:44 IST 2022 C/SCA/4780/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2022 offences, the trial had taken place and concluded. However, the trial in respect of the fourth offence has not yet been over and considering the past antecedents of the petitioner as the petitioner is having past criminal history, there is likelihood of disturbance of law and order situation and peace and therefore the arm license granted to the petitioner in the year 2012 being License No. SNR-III-07-2012 was cancelled vide order dated 04.04.2020.
5. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order, by way of an appeal being Arms Appeal No. 180 of 2020 before the Additional Secretary (Appeals) Home Department and even appeal preferred by the petitioner also was rejected vide order dated 01.01.2022 and therefore, by way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged both the aforesaid orders.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Bhunesh Rupera for the petitioner submitted that out of four offences which has been considered by the authority while cancelling the fire arms license being granted to the petitioner, two offences were registered under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, for which, the petitioner has paid the fine and therefore, considering the fact that those offences were not of serious nature, those offences ought not to have been considered while cancelling the arm license of the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Rupera further draws the attention of this Court in respect of that third offence registered under sections 323, 325, 504, 506 (2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 135 of the G.P. Act, Criminal Case no. 7 of 2019 was registered against five persons wherein the present petitioner was accused no. 3. In respect of the aforesaid criminal Page 3 of 9 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:10:44 IST 2022 C/SCA/4780/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2022 case, vide order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sayla below Exh 20 the petitioner alongwith other co-accused were acquitted by the Competent Court and therefore, even that offence also was not required to be taken into consideration by the authority for cancellation of fire arm license of the petitioner. As far as the fourth offence is concerned, learned advocate Mr. Bhunesh Rupera states that offence was of the year 2013 being FIR C.R.No. I - 30 of 2013 registered under sections 307, 147, 148, 149 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sections 25 (1) (1- b) (a) and section 27 of the Arms Act, in respect of the aforesaid offence registered mainly under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, learned advocate Mr. Rupera states that though the offence was registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code it was not to the petitioner who was carrying fire arms or that the petitioner has fired any gunshot, the gunshot was fired by some other person but despite that without considering the aforesaid aspect, the license of the petitioner was cancelled. He, therefore, submitted that both the orders passed by the authorities are without considering the defence of the petitioner and therefore, the orders said to have been passed as an example of non application of mind.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Rupera for the petitioner also drew attention of this Court to the various representations made by the petitioner seeking police protection and submitted that right from 2012 to 2020, the petitioner has made various applications for providing police protection as the petitioner has received threats for extortion of money for carrying out his mining Page 4 of 9 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:10:44 IST 2022 C/SCA/4780/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2022 activities. By pointing out the aforesaid applications made by the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Rupera states that both the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside as those orders have been passed completely ignoring the fact that out of four offences, two offences are petty offence whereas the petitioner has been acquitted in one offence and in respect of one offence though trial is not over, the petitioner was not carrying any fire arm.
8. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Rupera prayed for quashing and setting aside both the impugned orders and to direct the authorities for renewal of his fire arm license.
9. Learned AGP Mr. Sahil Trivedi appearing for the respondents - State vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that all the authorities have taken into consideration the overall facts and not the individual offences and what has held with the authority is the fact of involvement of the petitioner in four criminal offences within a short span of six years between 2012 to 2018.
10. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi submitted that though the applications are made by the petitioner for police protection, no untoward incident in respect of the present petitioner or in respect of the threat allegedly received by the petitioner has been reported by the petitioner or any complaint has been registered in respect of any such act by others though the petitioner has time and again expressed that there is a threat upon him. Learned AGP further relied upon judgment of Page 5 of 9 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:10:44 IST 2022 C/SCA/4780/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2022 Allahabad High Court in case of Indrajeet Singh V/s. State of U.P. and others and more particularly by relying upon paragraph nos. 16, 17 and 18 submitted that by considering the aspect of the public peace and public safety, the licensing authority is well empowered to revoke or cancel the license. He submitted that what is required to be considered by the licensing authority is overall facts and circumstances and not the instances individually.
11. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi submitted that the decision making process is based upon the subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority and he can be said to be the best judge who can assess the situation on the basis of material available before him. It is for the petitioner to show that the decision taken by the licensing authority is perverse on the basis of material that the petitioner may produce.
12. In the instant case, according to learned AGP, except for the order of acquittal in respect of one case, out of four cases, no other material is placed on record by the petitioner and only on the basis of one acquittal, the petitioner's case cannot be considered positively and the orders passed by both the authorities cannot be said to have been passed illegal and he prayed for dismissal of this petition.
13. Except the aforesaid submissions, no other submissions were made by the learned advocates for the parties nor any judgments except which is mentioned in foregoing paragraph was relied upon by the advocates for the parties.
14. I have heard the submissions made by the learned advocates Page 6 of 9 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:10:44 IST 2022 C/SCA/4780/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2022 for the respective parties and I have also perused the record of this petition. I have also gone through both the orders which are impugned in this petition.
15. It is true that out of four cases, in respect of one case the petitioner has been acquitted whereas in respect of two cases wherein it related to petty offences, the petitioner has paid the amount of fine and trial has not yet concluded in respect of an offence which is registered under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code alongwith other relevant sections mentioned in FIR C.R. No. I - 30 of 2013 registered on 04.03.2013.
16. For revocation of fire arm what is required to be assessed by the authority is whether the license of fire arm is actually required to be given to the applicant or not, or in case of revocation or cancelltion of license whether permitting the petitioner to continue to have the licence of fire arm would endanger others or not?
17. In the instant case, even if two petty offences are discarded from the consideration, in respect of two other offences, there are two offences registered against the petitioner, one under sections 323, 325, 504, 506 (2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act whereas another offfence is registered against the petitioner under section 307, 147, 148, 149, 506 (2) and section 25 (1), 1- B (a) and section 27 of the Arms Act and r/w section 135 of the Bomaby Police Act. What is required to be considered by the authority is the overall circumstances and whether the petitioner really deserves arm license or not?
Page 7 of 9 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:10:44 IST 2022C/SCA/4780/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2022
18. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the authority came to the conclusion that if the petitioner's fire arm license is not cancelled, the same would be a threat to public peace and public safety. The District Magistrate, Surendranagar has specifically observed in his order that the present applicant has in the past used his license revolver for committing an offence and therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, on the basis of the subjective satisfaction arrived by the District Magistrate, Surendranagar, the order dated 04.04.2020 was passed by the District Magistrate, Surendranagar cancelling the fire arm license of the petitioner and even the appellate authority also after taking into consideration the submissions made by the petitioner confirmed the aforesaid order.
19. It is true that while considering the case of the petitioner what the Appellate Authority has observed is that there are three cases against the petitioner which are pending. However, there was only one case against the petitioner was pending on the date of consideration, but considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the aforesaid order cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or unreasonable order.
20. More particularly, when it is submitted by learned AGP Mr. Trivedi based upon the observations made by Allahabad High Court in case of Indrajeet Singh V/s. State of U.P. and others that considering the circumstances for securing the public peace and public order, the licensing authority is empowered to suspend or revoke the arm license Page 8 of 9 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:10:44 IST 2022 C/SCA/4780/2022 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2022 already given to a person and what is paramount is ensuring that public peace and public safety is not affected. In paragraph no. 18 of the aforesaid judgment relied upon by learned AGP, the Court observed as under:-
"18. The licensing authority is in the field, therefore, is the best judge who can assess the situation on the basis of material which are before him. Such an assessment cannot be substituted by this Court which is no way connected or does not have any inkling of situations. This Court cannot undertake any exercise to determine the facts leading to the subjective satisfaction of the licencing authority on the basis of situation then existing, except there are material to show as to how the satisfaction is perverse or based on no material."
21. In view of the fact that whether to grant license or to revoke the license or to cancel the license is the subject matter of subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority based upon the material available before the authority and therefore, this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot undertake any exercise to determine the facts looking to the subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority based on the situation and material available before him.
22. In view of that, I do not see any illegality committed by both the authorities in cancelling the license and confirming the order whereby the license was cancelled. Accordingly the present petition is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) VARSHA DESAI Page 9 of 9 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:10:44 IST 2022