Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/26676/2006 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 26676 of 2006
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
SULEMAN
YUSUF SELIA. - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT. THRO' SECRETARY. & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
NK MAJMUDAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RASHESH A. RINDANI AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 27/01/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated
19.05.2006 passed by respondent no.2, whereby, the appeal preferred
by the petitioner was rejected and the order dated 02.12.2005 passed
by respondent no.3 cancelling the arms licence of the petitioner was
confirmed.
2. The
facts in brief are that the petitioner was possessing an arms
licence, which was renewed from time to time. Lastly, it was renewed
for the period up to 31.12.2005. Before the renewal period expired,
an application was preferred by one Bhimji M. Chaudhary before
respondent no.3 inter alia alleging that the petitioner was misusing
the arms licence issued to him by using the same for killing cattle
and therefore, it may be cancelled. On the said application,
respondent no.3 passed the order dated 02.12.2005 cancelling the
licence issued in favour
3. Against
the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent
no.2-authority. However, the said appeal was rejected. Hence, this
petition.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. It appears from the record that before passing the
impugned order dated 19.05.2006, the respondent no.2-authority had
not granted any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to show that
he was the owner of any agricultural land or not. It also appears
that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the
petitioner. In view of the above and in the fitness of things, it
would be appropriate that respondent no.2-authority decides the issue
afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to
produce necessary documents on record and to present his case.
5. Consequently,
the impugned oder dated 19.05.2006 passed by respondent
no.2-authority is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to
respondent no.2 for consideration afresh, in view of the reasons
stated in the foregoing paragraph. The petitioner shall make an
application, along with necessary documents in support of his case,
to respondent no.2-authority within a period of Three Weeks
from today and if any such application is received from the
petitioner, the respondent no.2-authority shall render its decision
on such application, within a period of Eight Weeks
thereafter. It is made clear that this Court has quashed the earlier
order of respondent no.2-authority not on merits and therefore, the
respondent no.2-authority shall render its decision on merits,
without being influenced by the fact that this Court has quashed its
earlier order. With the above observations, the petition stands
disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Direct
service permitted.
[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]
Pravin/*
Top