Disposed

Sheetal Ajit Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Aug 2014WP/4243/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court considered suggestions from counsel regarding the amendment of screening committee guidelines for weapon licence holders. The Bench considered proposals to involve Election Commission representatives, mandate ante- cedent reports for all licence holders, and provide an opportunity of hearing where time permits. The Court directed the State Government to consider these suggestions a

What did the court decide?

The State Government is directed to consider the suggestions and take appropriate decision, including amendments to the screening committee guidelines.

Sheetal Ajit Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

pvr 1/3 3wp4171-4243-14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4171 OF 2014

¶5

1.Vijay Dinkarrao Patil & Anr. ...Petitioners. vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶6

AND WRIT PETITION NO.4243 OF 2014

¶7

Sheetal Ajit Patil. ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶8

Mr.V.P.Sawant i/b. Mr.Vinod Yashwantrao Jadhav, for the Petitioners in WP no.4171/14.

¶9

Mr.Nikhil Chavan, for the Petitioner in WP 4243 of 2014.

¶10

Mr.A.B.Vagyani, Government Pleader for Respondent nos.1 to 7.

¶11

CORAM : A.S.OKA & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 10^th OCTOBER, 2014.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

In terms of the judgment and order dated 13^th August,2014, fresh guidelines have been issued to the State Government on 20^th September,2014. The suggestion of the learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition no.4171 of 2014 is that in case of the election of Local Authorities, a representative of the State Election Commission should be a member of the

¶14

Screening Committee and in case of elections of the Parliament or Vidhansabha, a representative of Chief Electoral Officer of the State should be

¶15

pvr 2/3 3wp4171-4243-14

¶16

nominated as a member of the Screening Committee. His submission is that this exercise of screening is required to be done essentially for ensuring free and fair elections. We are of the view that this suggestion is worth considering and the State Government shall consider this suggestion and take appropriate decision.

¶17

The second suggestion made by the learned Counsel is that the only selected cases should be placed before the Screening Committee. The learned Government Pleader states that normally the cases are placed before the Screening Committee alongwith the reports of the local police stations recording antecedents of the licence holders. The emphasis of the Election Commission appears to be on the consideration of cases of all the licence holders who are holding weapons. The State Government may consider of modifying the guidelines for providing that while placing the cases of all licence holders before Screening Committee, a latest police report of local police station on antecedents of each licence holder shall be placed before the Screening Committee to facilitate the Secreening Committee to take appropriate decision.

¶18

Another suggestion made by the learned Counsel is that in case of those licence holders where the Screening Committee finds that a case is made out for surrender of weapon, the Screening Committee should issue notice to them and give them an opportunity of being heard. We find that this suggestion may not be practicable in the sense that the time gap between the

¶19

pvr 3/3 3wp4171-4243-14

¶20

declaration of election programme and the date of voting can be only of three to four weeks and Screening Committee is required to examine large number of cases. However, the State Government may consider of giving discretion to the Screening Committee to issue notices to licence holders provided there is sufficient time available to the Screening Committee to give hearing to the affected licence holders.

¶21

Our attention is invited to Clause 5 of the guidelines. It is obvious that clause 5 contemplates that separate brief reasons for arriving at the decision and conclusion are required to be recorded by the Screening Committee in case of each licence holder. It is obvious that the decision of the Screening Committee will be by majority.

¶22

The learned Counsel pointed out that there are cases where the arms were found to have been damaged when the same were returned to the licence holders. In our view, it is necessary to provide in the guidelines that the Authority to whom the arms are surrendered shall make appropriate arrangements for proper storage of surrendered arms and shall ensure that there is no damage caused to the arms which are surrendered.

¶23

The State Government shall take appropriate decision for amending the guidelines in the light of what we have discussed above.

¶24

No further directions are required to be issued.

Sheetal Ajit Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheetal Ajit Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The High Court Bar Association, Nagpur Vs the State of Maharashta

Advocates Association of Western India Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sana Mohammed Siddik Ansari Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Social Justice Dept. and Ors.

Miraj Municipal Council Vs Kisan Bhau Satwekar and Anr.

Vijay Dinkarrao Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal Corporation Vs Kisan Bhau Satwekar and Ors.