ORDER : 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.06.2021 passed by respondent no. 1 in Weapon Dispute Application No. 77-C/2019 whereby the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by respondent no. 2 rejecting the application for renewal was confirmed. 2. Facts in brief have been considered in the order in the earlier round by this court in Special Civil Application No. 12106 of 2019 dated 16.07.2019. “2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the business of diamond and jewelery. It is submitted that the petitioner holds 50% share in two partnership firms and turnover of these partnership firms is over Rs.1 crore. It is submitted that customers of these partnership firms are located in various part of country and therefore, the petitioner has to frequently travel in various parts of country for the purpose of business. It is submitted that nature of the business of the petitioner is such that he is required to carry stock of diamonds and gold bars along with him during travel and the petitioner also receives cash on sale of those products. 2.1 It is submitted that the petitioner was already granted NP bore revolver /pistol licence for self-defence looking to nature of his business. This licence was issued considering the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and that he is not involved in any anti-social activities. 2.2 It is submitted that when the petitioner applied for renewal of the said licence in May 2017, the said application was rejected on the ground that there is delay of five months in filing the application for renewal. It is submitted that due to continuous travelling for business purpose, the petitioner inadvertently forgot to apply for renewal. 2.3 It is submitted that that the rejection of the firearm license is based on irrelevant consideration as the firearm license came to be refused on the only ground that there is delay in applying for renewal. The appellate authority has also rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the same ground.” 3. It appears that the petitioner otherwise a resident of Amreli applied for renewal of licence which was rejected on the ground of it being delayed by a period of five months. The appellate authority has also rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the same ground.” 3. It appears that the petitioner otherwise a resident of Amreli applied for renewal of licence which was rejected on the ground of it being delayed by a period of five months. Aggrieved by the order so passed, the petitioner was constrained to file the aforesaid petition wherein the court on 16.07.2019 passed the following order : “4. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner is already granted NP bore revolver /pistol licence for self-defence looking to nature of his business by the licence issuing authority. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is involved in any criminal /anti-social activity and the application for renewal is rejected only on the ground of delay, which in the opinion of this Court is not sufficient reason to reject the application of the petitioner for renewal. The petitioner has also stated that not applying in time for renewal was an inadvertent mistake as he was continuously on travel for business purpose. 5. Consequentially, order dated 04.06.2019 passed by the Joint Secretary, Home Department in Arms Appeal No.32 of 2018 also reiterates the findings given by the License Issuing Authority. 6. In view of the aforesaid, order dated 04.06.2019 passed by the Joint Secretary, Home Department in Arms Appeal No.32 of 2018 and order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Amreli are quashed and set aside. It is open for the petitioner to make a fresh application with necessary documents to the License Issuing Authority within period of two weeks from today. The District Magistrate shall consider such application afresh, in accordance with law and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within period of two months therefrom. 7. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. The District Magistrate shall consider such application afresh, in accordance with law and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within period of two months therefrom. 7. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted.” 3.1 On the matter being sent back to be considered afresh by the impugned orders, it appears that not only has the ground of delay been reiterated but the other grounds on which the application for renewal has been rejected are that in light of the fact that there are modes of dealing with the payments through the online mode and e-payments and that there appears to be no threat perception and also looking to the income tax returns, the application for renewal was rejected. Additionally, it is the case of the authority that the petitioner has been staying in Surat for over 15 years and has not applied under Rule 17 of the Arms Rules, 2016 (‘the rules’ for short) for take over of the arms before the Surat authorities. Both these grounds apparently appear to be contrary to the records. 4. It will be in the fitness of things to point out that when in the first round the application was rejected on the ground of delay, the court specifically issued a direction to the authorities to consider the same ignoring the delay of five months. That ground therefore could not have have weighed with the authorities in rejecting the application. As far as the ground of he having not made an application under Section 17 to change his address, Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate would rely on communication dated 17-28.10.2016 issued by the office of the Police Commissioner, Surat addressed to the District Magistrate, Amreli by which several details were sought for by the Commissioner of Police where the petitioner had shifted. Reading this communication would indicate that the petitioner did make an application for the requisite permission in compliance with Rule 17(1) of the Arms Rules, 2016. Reading this communication would indicate that the petitioner did make an application for the requisite permission in compliance with Rule 17(1) of the Arms Rules, 2016. 4.1 As far as the grounds with regard to the e-payment mode and online mode of cash dealings and income tax returns, this court has in the case of Bhupatbhai Bhikhabhai Mankad vs. State of Gujarat [2016 JX(Guj) 1202] categorically set out in detail while referring to sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act as to on what considerations a renewal application or an application for issuance of licence can be rejected. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow : “7. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the order impugned passed in appeal, it clearly bornes out that the appellate authority, after narrating the contents, which are raised before it, has just reiterated the reasons, which are given by respondent No.2 while passing the order dated 28.6.2012. This Court in the case of Sorab Jehangir Bamji (supra) has examined and dealt with the contingencies under which a licence can be refused by the licensing authority as set out in Section 14 of the Act and has observed thus: 15. The contingencies wherein a licence may be refused by the licencing authority are set out in Section 14, which reads as below: 14. Refusal of licences. (1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant (a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition; (b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II, (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe (1) to be 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 (2) to be of unsound mind, or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or (ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. (2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property. (3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person 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. Section 14 sets out the grounds on which a firearm licence may be refused. The reason for refusal to grant a firearm licence to the petitioner is not that he is prohibited by any provision of the Act or any other law from holding a licence, or that he has asked for a licence in respect of a prohibited firearm, or is of unsound mind or, is unfit for grant of licence under the Act for any other reason. Further, the application of the petitioner has not been rejected on the ground that such refusal would be necessary for the security of the public peace, or for public safety. The reason for rejection of the application is that the petitioner was aged 63 years, which does not find mention in Section 14 of the Act. There is no other provision in the Act that states that a licence cannot be granted to a person who attains a particular age. 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 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 Act. 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 Act, 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 Act. Merely refusing to issue a licence for a reason not prohibited by the Act, such as being aged 63 years, is unjustified and not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. 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 Act, it is evident that the respondents have failed to show any valid grounds for refusal of the licence.” 5. 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 Act, it is evident that the respondents have failed to show any valid grounds for refusal of the licence.” 5. In light of the above, the order impugned is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to renew the licence of the petitioner considering it to have been made on an application under Rule 17(1) of the rules. It is clarified that while issuing a licence, adverse instance, if any comes to the notice of the competent authority which directly implicates the petitioner in any offence post the order impugned herein, the licence may be refused. The petition is accordingly allowed. Direct service is permitted.