Allowed

Sheshrao@Vijay Bhikaji Salve v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC18 Nov 2013WP/899/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside an order refusing a firearm licence to the petitioner, who had been acquitted of pending criminal cases. The court directed the licensing authority to reconsider the application fresh, noting the original refusal was based on a factually incorrect belief of case pendency.

What did the court decide?

The orders refusing the license dated 19.07.2011 and 09.01.2013 were set aside and the Respondent No.2 was directed to consider the application afresh.

Sheshrao@Vijay Bhikaji Salve Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri.W.P.899.13.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 899 OF 2013

¶5

Sheshrao @ Vijay Bhikaji Salve Age : 46 years, Occ : Construction and Plotting Business, R/o C-11, Anjali Niwas, Devanagari Behind Shahnoormiya Darga, Aurangabad.

¶6

.. PETITIONER

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

The State of Maharashtra Through its Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶9

The Police Commissioner, Aurangabad.

¶10

.. RESPONDENTS

¶11

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. P.S. Pawar APP for Respondents : Mr. P.N. Muley

¶12

CORAM : A.M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: November 18, 2013

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶14

Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

¶15

The petitioner had made an application for a licence to acquire,

¶16

2 Cri.W.P.899.13.odt

¶17

hold and possess a firearm, to the licensing authority i.e. Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad. This application was rejected by the said licensing authority by an order dated 19.07.2011.

¶18

The petitioner filed an appeal as contemplated under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 challenging the said order, but the appellate authority dismissed the said appeal.

¶19

Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.

¶20

Amongst other things, it is contended that the licence came to be refused to the petitioner on the basis that two criminal cases were pending against him. It is submitted that these cases were already over and had resulted in the acquittal of the petitioner. On this, it is submitted that the order passed by the competent authority and the order passed by the appellate authority are bad in law and need to be set aside.

¶21

I have gone through the reasons on which the licence came to

¶22

Cri.W.P.899.13.odt

¶23

¶24

be refused to be issued in favour of the petitioner, as found in the communication dated 19.07.2011 addressed to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (administration) on behalf of the Commissioner of police, Aurangabad, who is the authority in the matter. The first reason, as mentioned in the said communication, is that two criminal cases vide C.R. No. 1306/2002 at Kranti Chowk Police Station and vide C.R. No. I-136/2001 at Jawaharnagar Police Station ‘are pending against him.’ The second reason mentioned is that the grounds on which the petitioner is seeking to acquire or possess a firearm were not believed to be true or genuine.

¶25

It is not in dispute that the cases arising out of the said C.Rs. had already been disposed of at the material time and the petitioner had been acquitted from both the cases. That is clear from the letter dated 26.05.2011 addressed by the Inspector of Police, Special branch, Aurangabad to the Assistant Commissioner of Police of the said branch, a copy of which is annexed to the Petition.

¶26

The appellate authority did not touch this aspect viz:- that cases said to be pending against the petitioner were actually not

¶27

Cri.W.P.899.13.odt

¶28

¶29

pending and had resulted in his acquittal .

¶30

It is clear that the decision of the competent authority was influenced by the belief of pendency of two criminal cases against the petitioner on the given date. Since no such cases were pending on the given date, the said ground was not available for consideration.

¶31

The decision has been influenced by a consideration that ‘two criminal cases were pending against the petitioner’ which was factually not correct. Since a non-existent fact was taken into consideration for arriving at a decision not to grant licence to the petitioner, the decision is clearly vitiated.

¶32

8. The Petition succeeds.

¶33

The order dated 19.07.2011 passed by the respondent

¶34

No.2 and the order dated 09.01.2013 passed by the respondent no.1 are set aside.

¶35

The respondent no.2 is directed to consider the

¶36

application for issuance of licence made by the petitioner afresh, by

¶37

Cri.W.P.899.13.odt

¶38

¶39

keeping in mind that no criminal cases were pending against the

¶40

petitioner on the date of his application, or on the date of the decision

¶41

of the respondent no.2 to refuse a licence to the petitioner.

¶42

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

¶43

Sd/- ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶44

¶45

sga/-

Sheshrao@Vijay Bhikaji Salve v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheshrao@Vijay Bhikaji Salve v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Rajesh Chandmal Varma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anil Sampat Chavan Vs Indubai Anil Chavan

Balaji Bhujangrao Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anuja Sachin Vaidya and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhimrao Limbada Kadam and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nijam Gayasuddin Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra