Firearm license cannot be revoked solely due to proximity to a wildlife sanctuary without proof of personal involvement in illegal activities.

The petitioner, a farmer residing in Anjar, District Surendranagar, held a 12 Bore Rifle license (No. 12/14) granted in 2014 and renewed until December 31, 2023

On November 1, 2021, the District Magistrate revoked the license citing two primary grounds: first, the petitioner’s farmland is within a 10 km radius of an equestrian sanctuary (Ghudkhar sanctuary) where rare animals were found dead in separate incidents; and second, the petitioner was deemed ineligible under Section 34 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972

The petitioner challenged this revocation via Article 226, arguing that he was not involved in the alleged animal killings, no criminal cases were lodged against him, and the revocation did not fall under the statutory grounds of the Arms Act

1. Whether the licensing authority can revoke an arms license on grounds outside the specific provisions of Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959

2. Whether the location of a licensee's residence within the vicinity of a wildlife sanctuary constitutes a valid legal basis for the revocation of an existing license

Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, which exhaustively lists the conditions and procedures for the variation, suspension, and revocation of licenses

Section 34 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, concerning the regulation of certain activities near sanctuaries

The court referenced the precedent of Ahmed Mustafa Sunsara v. District Magistrate and Collector, Banaskantha, establishing that once a license is issued, the authority cannot reassess the initial "cause" for issuance but must strictly adhere to statutory revocation grounds

The court examined the District Magistrate’s order and found it largely based on a general conservation policy regarding the proximity of the Ghudkhar sanctuary rather than any specific misconduct by the petitioner

The court noted that the petitioner was not directly or indirectly involved in the three FIRs lodged against unknown persons for animal killings

The reasoning emphasized that while an authority is required to verify threats before issuing a license, it cannot "review or reassess" the necessity of a license already granted unless the specific criteria for revocation under Section 17 of the Arms Act are met

Since the license had since expired during the pendency of the litigation in 2023, the court observed that a purely merit-based quashing was secondary to the administrative necessity of a fresh application

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to make a fresh application for the renewal of his firearm license

The respondent authority was directed to consider such application in accordance with the law and as expeditiously as possible. Rule was discharged