Remanded

Murlidhar Ramchandra Bagwe v. the Collector of Sindhudurg and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Feb 2006WP/1519/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the Appellate Authority's order dismissing the appeal based on the 'large number of licences' in the area. It held the Authority did not address the Petitioner's fitness despite a presumption arising from his father's prior licence and inherited land, remanding the matter for a rehearing.

What did the court decide?

Order of 9 December 2003 set aside; matter remanded to Appellate Authority to rehear petitioner afresh.

Murlidhar Ramchandra Bagwe Vs the Collector of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1519 OF 2005

¶4

Shri Murlidhar Ramchandra Bagwe. Vs. The Collector of Sindhudurg & Ors.

¶5

...Petitioner.

¶6

...Respondents.

¶7

.... Mr. R. N. Sanghavi for the Petitioner. Mr. A.P. Vanrshe, AGP for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : F. I. REBELLO AND DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ.

¶9

February 22, 2006 .

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Rule. Heard forthwith.

¶12

The late father of the Petitioner had an arms licence as

¶13

also a fire arm. On its expiry, the Petitioner herein, applied for an arms licence. That was rejected by the Collector against which

¶14

the Petitioner herein, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Konkan Division, who is the Appellate Authority.

¶15

It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the Appellate

¶16

Authority did not address himself to the correct question as to

¶17

¶18

whether the Petitioner was a person unfit to be granted a licence. On the contrary, the appeal was dismissed merely on the ground that there are large number of licences given in that area. It is pointed out that the protection is sought for protecting the agricultural land of the Petitioner herein and the fact that the others have been given licences would be of irrelevant consideration.

¶19

Having heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we found that the Appellate Authority did not address himself to the real issue which has been decided. In the first instance, the Petitioner's father had an arms licence. This by itself raises the presumption that the land which is now inherited by the Petitioner requires to be protected. In these circumstances, the application by the Petitioner for an arms licence could have only been rejected if the Petitioner otherwise was unfit person, considering the provisions of the Arms Act. No such finding was recorded. In the light of that, the order dated 9^th December 2003 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to rehear the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. At any rate, the appeal to be disposed of within three months hereof. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.

¶20

¶21

( F. I. Rebello, J.)

¶22

( Dr.D. Y. Chandrachud, J.)

Murlidhar Ramchandra Bagwe v. the Collector of Sindhudurg and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murlidhar Ramchandra Bagwe v. the Collector of Sindhudurg and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar Resort and Amusement Pvt.Ltd. Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Ors.

Rajkumar Suresh Koli Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. Vs the Secretary (Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas ) and Ors.

Saudi Arabian Airlines Vs Assistant Pf Commissioner and Ors.

Shirishkumar Rupchand Gandhi and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Employees' State Insurance Corpn. and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Bureau of Text Book and Anr.