V.M. Pancholi, J.

1. Rule. Learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval waives service of notice of rule for respondents.

2. Looking to the issue involved in this petition, learned advocates appearing for the parties have jointly requested that this matter be heard and decided at an admission stage and, hence, this matter is being heard and decided finally.

3. By way of this petition, which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.12.2020 passed by the respondent NO. 2, whereby the respondent NO. 2 has revoked the fire arm licence of the petitioner.

4. Heard learned advocate, Mr. M.A. Kharadi appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval appearing for the respondents.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner got the fire arm licence under the provisions of the Arms Act in the year 1997, which was issued to the petitioner for the purpose of self-protection. It is submitted that the said licence has been renewed from time to time, however lastly when the petitioner submitted an application for the renewal of the said licence in the prescribed form, the respondent NO. 2, vide impugned order dated 05.12.2020, has revoked the licence of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner is more than 55 years of age. Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to the impugned order, copy of which is placed on record at Page NO. 19 of the compilation.

6. Learned advocate would submit that the respondent NO. 2 is not authorized to revoke the licence issued under the provisions of the Arms Act on the ground of age of the petitioner. At this stage, learned advocate referred to provision contained in Section 17 of the Arms Act and, thereafter, submitted that the licence issued under the Arms Act can be revoked on the grounds mentioned/stipulated in the said section.

7. Learned advocate has thereafter placed reliance upon the order dated 12.06.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal NO. 290/2016 in case of AshokkumarBhikhajiThakor Vs. State of Gujarat &Ors. Learned advocate has also placed reliance upon the order dated 29.08.2011 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application NO. 8691/2011 in case of Sorab Jehangir Bamji Vs. State of Gujarat, copy of which is placed on record during the course of hearing.

8. Learned advocate has, therefore, urged that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and the matter be remitted back to the respondent NO. 2 for deciding the application filed by the petitioner for renewal of the license afresh.

9. On the other hand, learned AGP, though has opposed this petition, is not in a position to dispute the fact that while passing impugned order by which the license of the petitioner has been revoked, the respondent NO. 2 has considered the age of the petitioner, which is not permissible as per the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Arms Act.

10. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the parties. I have also perused the material placed on record. From the records, it transpires that the fire arms licence under the provisions of the Arms Act was issued to the petitioner in the year 1997, which was renewed from time to time. Now when the petitioner has submitted an application for the renewal of the said licence, the respondent NO. 2 has revoked the licence on permanent basis on the ground that the petitioner is more than 55 years of age.

11. Section 17 of the Arms Act reads as under,

"17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences--

(1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice.

(2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed.

(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such periods as it thinks fit or revoke a licence--

(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or

(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or

(c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or

(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or

(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence.

(4) The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof.

(5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefor and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.

(6) The authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate may by order in writing suspend or revoke a licence on any ground on which it may be suspended or revoked by the licensing authority; and the foregoing provisions of this section shall, as far as maybe, apply in relation to the suspension or revocation of a licence by such authority.

(7) A court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder may also suspend or revoke the licence:

Provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void.

(8) An order of suspension or revocation under sub-section (7) may also be made by an appellate court or by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision.

(9) The Central Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, suspend or revoke or direct any licensing authority to suspend or revoke all or any licences granted under this Act throughout India or any part thereof.

(10) On the suspension or revocation of a licence under this section the holder thereof shall without delay surrender the licence to the authority by whom it has been suspended or revoked or to such other authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of suspension or revocation."

12. Thus from the aforesaid provision, it can be said that the respondent authority is empowered to revoke the licence issued under the Arms Act on the grounds stipulated in the said provision and not otherwise.

13. The Division Bench of this Court in an order in case of AshokkumarBhikhaji Thakore (supra), after considering the provision contained in Section 17 of the Arms Act, has observed in Para Nos. 15 and 16 as under,

"15. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the licensing authority is empowered to suspend or revoke the licence under the circumstances which are enumerated in aforesaid sub-section (3) of Section 17. As observed hereinabove the respondent NO. 3 has placed reliance upon the negative opinion given by the Superintendent of Police and pendency of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. However, the respondent NO. 3 has not considered whether the registration of FIR against the petitioner and pendency of criminal proceedings for the offence of criminal breach of trust, forgery and under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act in any way affect the public safety, security or public peace. Further, the respondent NO. 3 has also committed an error by observing that the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence in favour of his claim that risk is involved in his business and therefore arms licence is required. It is required to be noted that the respondent NO. 3 was not for the first time issuing the licence in favour of the petitioner but he was exercising the powers under Section 17 of thefor revocation of the licence and therefore also the order passed by the respondent NO. 3 is required to be set aside. From the order passed by the respondent NO. 3 it is not reflected that he has exercised the powers under Section 17(3)(a) of theon the ground that petitioner is unfit to have licence. Thus, the submission canvassed by learned AGP is misconceived.

16. Further, the respondent NO. 3 has revoked the licence of the petitioner on the basis of pendency of criminal proceedings as discussed hereinabove. However, arms licence of the co-accused of the same FIR against whom the criminal proceeding is still pending has been restored by the Appellate Authority."

14. Further, in the order passed by this Court in case of Sorab Jehangir Bamji (supra), this Court has observed in Para Nos. 17, 18 and 19 as under,

"17. In light of the statutory provisions and decisions referred to above, it would be necessary to revert to the impugned orders. A perusal of the impugned orders indicates that the sole reason for rejection of the application of the petitioner, is based upon the opinion of the Police authorities that the licence may not be granted as the petitioner is aged 63 years. Apart from that, the District Magistrate and the State Government have concluded in their respective orders, that no reasonable ground exists for granting a licence to the petitioner. As has been noticed hereinabove, Section 13(2A) vests the licencing authority with power to either grant a licence or refuse the same, as thought necessary, after considering the report of the officer in charge of the nearest Police Station, as provided under Section 13(1)(2). As per Section 14(1)(b)(ii), the licencing authority shall refuse to grant a licence, among other reasons mentioned in Section 14(1), if it is found necessary to refuse it for the security of the public peace or public safety. As already discussed above, the report of the Police authorities in the case of the petitioner, does not indicate that he has any criminal antecedents, or that granting the licence to him will endanger the security and safety of the public or hinder public peace. In fact, the Police authorities have not given any adverse opinion in the case of the petitioner. The only ground mentioned is that the petitioner is 63 years of age which, in the view of this Court, cannot be considered as being a prohibition, as it is nowhere so stated in the.

18. Though Section 9 prohibits a person, who has not completed the age of 21 years, from acquiring, possessing or carrying a firearm or ammunition, there is no prohibition regarding a person of any age above the age of 21 years from doing so. The grounds for refusal of a licence under Section 14 do not apply to the petitioner in any manner. The discretion for exercise of power vested in the licencing authority by virtue of Section 13(2A) is to be exercised in relation to, and in the context of, the provisions of the, in a reasonable and rational manner. The reasons for refusal of a licence would have to have a nexus to, and be in context with, the provisions of the. Merely refusing to issue a licence for a reason not prohibited by the, such as being aged 63 years, is unjustified and not in consonance with the provisions of the. It is stated in the impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate and the State Government, that there are no reasonable grounds for grant of licence to the petitioner. On the contrary, in view of the relevant provisions of the, it is evident that the respondents have failed to show any valid grounds for refusal of the licence.

19. The petitioner is, and has been, a member of Billimora Rifle Club since the year 1988, and has participated in a number of Rifle Shooting tournaments and won several certificates and awards. One of the grounds on which the petitioner has requested for grant of the licence is for participation in sports activities, namely, Rifle Shooting. As per Section 13(3)(I), the licencing authority can grant a licence in respect of a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty inches in length, for protection of crops or for sports. Apart from sports, the petitioner has cited the reason of self protection in his application for grant of the licence. As the petitioner was 63 years old at the relevant point of time, and is now aged about 67 years, it cannot be said that the reason of self protection is unjustified as older people would require to be more secure and to have a licenced firearm would provide such security. Both the grounds for which the petitioner has requested for the issuance of a firearm licence, cannot be said to be unreasonable or inadequate. It is not understandable on what premises the respondents have come to such a conclusion."

15. Thus from the aforesaid decision rendered by this Court, it is clear that the concerned petitioner was aged about 63 years at the relevant point of time and at the time of passing order, he was aged about 67 years and, therefore, this Court has observed that it cannot be said that the reason of self-protection is unjustified as older people would require to be more secure and to have a licenced firearm would provide such security. In the said case, the licence was denied to the concerned petitioner on the ground of age, whereas in the present case, the licence has been revoked by the respondent NO. 2 on the ground of age of the present petitioner, which is not permissible.

16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 05.12.2020 is required to be set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent NO. 2 for deciding the renewal application filed by the petitioner afresh. The respondent NO. 2 shall decide the renewal application of the petitioner in accordance with law keeping in view the provision contained in the Arms Act within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

17. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the present petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.