Allowed

Prashant S/O. Pravin Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC19 Dec 2016WP/633/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed orders rejecting a Shivaji Card holder son's application for a gunshot license for sports and crop protection due to insufficient reasons in the rejection order and lack of proper consideration of supporting documents.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the judgment and order dated 23.11.2015 of Divisional Commissioner and the order dated 17.04.2015 of Collector. Direction to petitioner to file fresh application within four weeks.

Prashant S/O. Pravin Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

633.2016Cri.WP.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.633 of 2016

¶5

Prashant s/o. Pravin Gaikwad,
Age 26 Yrs., Occ.Service

¶6

Jr. Clerk in Irrigation Department,
R/o. Opp. Collector Office, Girna Colony,
Jalgaon,Tq.and Dist.Jalgaon. PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Ministry, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶9

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.

¶10

3. The Collector, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS

¶11

...

¶12

Mr.Syed Masood Chand, Advocate for the
petitioner

¶13

Mr.S.Y.Mahajan, Additional P.P. for the
Respondent nos.1 to 3 / State

¶14

...

¶15

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶16

 K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.

¶17

Reserved on : 24.11.2016
 Pronounced on : 19.12.2016

¶18

633.2016Cri.WP.odt

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:

¶21

1.This Writ Petition takes exception
to the judgment and order dated 23rd November,
2015 passed by respondent no.2 Divisional
Commissioner, Nashik in Appeal No.12 of 2015
wherein the order dated 17th April, 2015
passed by the respondent no.3 Collector is
confirmed. There is also prayer seeking
directions to respondent no.2 to grant
license to the petitioner against the sports
category on the basis of the application
dated 22nd May, 2013.

¶22

2.It appears that the petitioner
herein filed the application along with
documents to respondent no.3, seeking
permission of gun license for the purpose of

¶23

crop protection and target practice of

¶24

sports on 22nd May, 2013. It is further the

¶25

case of the petitioner that on 23rd January,
2015, the Police Authority submitted report

¶26

633.2016Cri.WP.odt

¶27

¶28

and gave no objection for issuance of the
permission to gun license. On 19th June, 2013,
the Tahsildar, Jalgaon, has also submitted
report and no objection is given by the said
authority for issuance of gun license.

¶29

3.It is further the case of the

¶30

petitioner that the father of the petitioner
was a license holder of the gun which came to
be returned on 24th August, 2009, to the
Police Authority due to death of the father
of the petitioner on 19th December, 2008.
It appears that, respondent no.3 Collector
rejected request of the petitioner. Being
aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the
Arms Act to respondent no.2 and challenged
the order of Collector. However, the said
Appeal came to be rejected on 23rd November,
2015. Hence this Writ Petition.

¶31

633.2016Cri.WP.odt

¶32

¶33

4.The learned counsel appearing for

¶34

the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

¶35

a sports person and he is the member of the
Jalgaon District Rifle Association. The said
Association is affiliated to the Maharashtra

¶36

Rifle Association. The petitioner is

¶37

honoured with gold medal in shooting at the
District and State level competition. He

¶38

requires gun license for target practice and

¶39

crop protection. It is submitted that in fact

¶40

both the authorities have rejected the
application of the petitioner for gun license

¶41

keeping in view his prayer only for crop
protection and agricultural land, ignoring

¶42

that the petitioner needs said license even

¶43

for the target practice. He invites our
attention to the Government Gazette dated
06.03.2013, which is annexed at Exhibit-J,

¶44

and submits that the provisions of the said

¶45

Gazette clearly indicate that the person, who

¶46

633.2016Cri.WP.odt

¶47

¶48

is affiliated to the District Rifle, State
Rifle or Indian Rifle Association is entitled

¶49

for gun license on certain conditions.

¶50

5.He further submits that sub-section
(3) of Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959,

¶51

provides that any citizen can apply for gun

¶52

i.e. smooth bore gun having barrel of not

¶53

less than twenty inches in length for sports.

¶54

The petitioner applied from the said
category. However, the authorities did not

¶55

consider his application from the said
category. It is submitted that the

¶56

petitioner, being eligible for gun license,

¶57

applied for the same and the police authority
and the Tahsildar granted no objection
certificate/recommendation.However,the

¶58

respondent nos.2 and 3 did not consider the

¶59

report of the Police Officer and the

¶60

Tahsildar. Therefore, relying upon the

¶61

pleadings in the petition and annexures
thereto, the learned counsel appearing for

¶62

633.2016Cri.WP.odt

¶63

¶64

the petitioner submits that the Petition
deserves to be allowed.

¶65

6.On the other hand, the learned APP
appearing for the respondent – State submits
that the petitioner has submitted 7/12
extract of the agricultural land bearing Gat
No.31 situate at Amnor Gondi [Rithi], Taluka
Katol, District Nagpur and the petitioner has
shown his residence at Girna Colony, Jalgaon,
District Jalgaon. Therefore, it is beyond
comprehension that as to how the petitioner
can protect the crops on the agricultural
land situate at Amnor Gondi [Rithi], Taluka
Katol, District Nagpur. It is submitted that
the petitioner has not produced any
certificate showing that he had participated
in any of the games approved by the Indian
National Rifle Association. He had merely
produced certificate which shows that he has
participated in Taluka / District Level
shootingChampionshipatJalgaon.

¶66

633.2016Cri.WP.odt

¶67

¶68

Therefore, the said certificate cannot be
considered for grant of gun license.
Moreover, the petitioner does not come under

¶69

any of the provisions made in the
Notification no. 548 dated 08.03.2013 and
published in Indian Gazette on 06.09.2013,
wherein guidelines are issued for issuance of

¶70

license and ammunition to the sports, hence,
the said application of the petitioner was
rejected.

¶71

7.It is further submitted that merely

¶72

because father of the petitioner was earlier
granted license by the authority, there is no
provision to suggest that the petitioner is
entitled to have a gun license since his
father was possessing the same. It is

¶73

submitted that reliance placed by the
petitioner on the provisions of the Rule 131
of the Rules issued by the State Government

¶74

in Maharashtra Shastra Adhiniyam, Niyam

¶75

Pustika is misplaced in the fact of the case.

¶76

633.2016Cri.WP.odt

¶77

¶78

It is not mandatory as per the said rules
that if a father is having gun license, son
must also be given such license.

¶79

8.Heard the learned counsel appearing

¶80

for the petitioner and the learned APP
appearing for the respondent – State. With
their able assistance, perused the pleadings
in the petition, annexures thereto and the

¶81

reply filed by the respondent – State. We
have carefully perused the reasons assigned

¶82

by the District Collector in the impugned
order dated 17th April, 2015. The relevant
portion of the said order reads thus:

¶83

vtZnkj ;kauh lknj dsysY;k dkxni+=kaps ckjdkbZus voyksdu dsys vlrk] vtZnkjkdMs ekSts veusjxksanh ¼fjBh½ rkyqdk dksVksy ftYgk ukxiwj ;sFks ’ksrh vlY;kps fnlwu ;srs- lcc vtZnkj ;kauk ’ksrh iz;kstuklkBh canwd ijokuk nsrk ;s.kkj ukgh- vtZnkjkus Hkkjrh; jk"Vªh; jk;Qy vlksf’k,’kups ekU;rk vlysY;k dks.kR;kgh [ksGke/;s Hkkx ?ksrY;kps izek.ki= lknj dsysys ukgh- rlsp Hkkjrkps jkti= fn-

¶84

633.2016Cri.WP.odt

¶85

¶86

06@03@2013 ph izdkf’kr vf/klqpuk Ø-548] fn08@03@2013 vUo;s [ksGkMwlkBh |ko;kP;k ’kL= xksGk o ’kL=kckcr lqpuk ueqn dsysys vkgs- lnjhy jkti=ke/khy O;fDr fdaok O;DrhP;k izoxkZckcr |ko;kP;k lqVckcr ueqn vkgs- vtZnkj gs ueqn jkti=kP;k dks.kR;kgh O;DrhP;k izoxkZe/;s ;sr ukghrlcc vtZnkj ;kauk Li/kkZ iz;kstuklkBh canwd ijokuk nsrk ;s.kkj ukgh-

¶87

Upon careful perusal of the reasons

¶88

assigned by the said authority, there is no

¶89

discussion on the report submitted by the
concerned Police Station on 23rd January,
2015, recommending the case of the petitioner

¶90

for granting gun license for self protection.

¶91

The petitioner has placed on record
certificate issued by the Jalgaon District
Rifle Association, Jalgaon. It appears that

¶92

the petitioner did participate in the
Taluka/District level shooting championship
held at Jalgaon and secured 1st position and
received gold medal.

¶93

633.2016Cri.WP.odt

¶94

¶95

9.Be that as it may, since the order
passed by the Collector suffers from non-
assigning sufficient reasons as indicated
hereinabove, in our opinion the ends of
justice would be met in case the impugned
orders are quashed and set aside and the
petitioner is given further opportunity to
file the application afresh before the
concerned authority for gun license.
Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 23rd
November, 2015 passed by the respondent no.2
Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in Appeal No.
12 of 2015 and the order dated 17th April,
2015 passed by the respondent no.3 Collector
are quashed and set aside.

¶96

10.The petitioner will be at liberty to
file application afresh along with copies of
the documents within four weeks from today.
In case such application is filed, the
concerned Authority after adhering to the
relevant procedure and after summoning the

¶97

633.2016Cri.WP.odt

¶98

¶99

report from the concerned Police Station and
also other Competent Authorities involved in

¶100

the process as per the procedure take
expeditious decision afresh without being
influenced by the reasons assigned in the
earlier orders on its own merits in
accordance with law and communicate the said
decision to the petitioner.

¶101

11.With the above observations, the
Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶102

Sd/- Sd/-

¶103

 [K.K.SONAWANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶104

DDC

Prashant S/O. Pravin Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant S/O. Pravin Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Rajendrasingh S/O Jogindarsingh Nambardar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Motiram S/O Tulshiram Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gajanan S/O Ramchandra Kadam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Keshav S/O Tuljaram Salampure and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

1 Dadasabeb S/O Nana Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sharad S/O Vitthalrao Munde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others