The High Court of Bombay quashed an impugned order dismissing an appeal under section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. The court directed the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal afresh within three months.
Quashed the impugned order dated May 2, 2014, and directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 3) wp1767-16.doc
SAS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1767 OF 2016
VjayMahadev Bhosale ..Petitioner.
V/s.
The District Collector, Sangli & Anr.
..Respondents.
Mr.Mahindra B.Deshmukh for the petitioner.
Mrs.N.S.Jain, APP for the respondent.
CORAM: NITIN W.SAMBRE, J.
DATE : MARCH 6, 2018
P.C.:-
Heard the respective parties.
the learned Divisional Commissioner, Pune dismissed the same by
citing the reasons that no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Licence Issuing Authority, as the petitioner has failed
to make out a case for grant of licence for firearm.
2 3) wp1767-16.doc
that he already holds an arms licence and what was prayed by him was extension of area in which he should be permitted to carry the fire-arm.
( NITIN W.SAMBRE, J. )
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the appeal under section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, is liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
VjayMahadev Bhosale
The District Collector, Sangli
Siddhivinayak Mahila Vikas Sanstha, Sangli
NIITIN W.SAMBRE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
