Allowed

Ashok S/O Dyayaram Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC12 Jan 2018WP/984/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an arms licence application. The court held that refusal based on low income and unmentioned grounds violated Section 14 of the Arms Act, quashing previous orders and directing the issue of the licence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; respondent directed to issue arms licence within 30 days.

Ashok S/O Dyayaram Patil Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

WP 984 16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 984 OF 2016

¶4

Ashok s/o Dayaram Patil, Age
38 years, Occ. Stringer, of
Sudarshan News Channel & ...Petitioner.
Head Master, r/o. Plot No.
44, Vidya Nagar, Tq. Parola,
Dist. Nanded.

¶5

VERSUS.

¶6

1 The State of Maharashtra, Through : its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai.

¶7

2 The Divisional Commissioner, Nasik, District Nasik.

¶8

3 The Collector, ... Respondents . Jalgaon, District Jalgaon.

¶9

...

¶10

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh. APP for Respondent No. 1 to 3 : Mr. B.A. Shinde.

¶11

CORAM: K. L. WADANE, J.
 DATE:12th January, 2018

¶12

JUDGMENT:

¶13

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶14

2. By consent of the learned counsel for both parties, this petition heard finally.

¶15

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27.04.2016 passed by

¶16

WP 984 16.odt

¶17

respondent No. 2 in Arms Licence Appeal under section
18 of the Arms Act, 1959, whereby the Arms Licence
Appeal No. 3/2015 filed by the petitioner is dismissed
and confirmed the order passed by the respondent No. 3
dated 11.02.2015.

¶18

4. The petitioner is a stringer of the Sudarshan
News Channel and has specially appointed as a string
operation in the Taluka Parola, District Jalgaon, due
to this he has been actively involved in the social and
political activity in Parola city. The petitioner is a
builder and developer having land business from which
he is getting huge success. The petitioner is also
actively involved in educational field.

¶19

5. The petitioner is also having an irrigated land
at Mauje Kunzar in Jalgaon District and another landed
property at village Vadali in Nandurbar district. The
aforementioned immovable properties are situated in the
forest area. The petitioner become a successful
agriculturist and businessman within a short span of
time, therefore, so many people from the area have
grudge in their mind against the petitioner and his
family, and there was threat of life from the anti-
social element.

¶20

2/9

¶21

WP 984 16.odt

¶22

6. The petitioner also filed a criminal complaint
against accused persons for the offences punishable
under section 384, 385, 452 read with section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. On this background the petitioner
filed an application to issue arms licence for the
reasons stated therein.

¶23

7. The respondent No. 3 called the report from the
police as well as revenue officers and after hearing
the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 has rejected the
application mainly on three grounds; (i) there was no
threats to the life of the petitioner or his family
members (ii) the yearly income of the petitioner for
the year 2012-2013 was only Rs. 4,11,942/- and (iii)
there are so many businessmen in the district and if
the arms licences were to be issued to each and every
businessmen then the number of arms licence holder will
be increased. The order of the respondent No. 3 was

¶24

assailed before the respondent No. 2. The respondent
No. 2 also rejected the appeal of the petitioner almost
on similar grounds as has been cited by the respondent
No. 3.

¶25

8. I have heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for

¶26

the petitioner who submitted that the licence was

¶27

3/9

¶28

WP 984 16.odt

¶29

refused to the petitioner on the grounds as referred
above. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel further submitted
that, so far as above grounds are concerned same are
not contemplated under section 14 of the Arms Act,1959.
Mr. Deshmukh further submitted that if a particular
provision of statute prescribes the grounds on which
the discretion is to be exercised, then such a
discretion is to be exercised in accordance with the
provisions of said statute and not on any other ground,
not mentioned in the said provisions.

¶30

9. Mr. Deshmukh learned counsel further submitted
that herein this case even though no such ground
mentioned under section 14 of the Arms Act for refusal
of the licence. The authorities have refused licence to
the petitioner on the ground which is not contemplated
under section 14 of the Arms Act. Therefore,the learned
counsel for petitioner submitted that the orders passed
by the respondent 3 and confirmed by the respondent No.
2 are liable to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Deshmukh,
learned counsel therefore relied upon the observations
of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 490/2008
and the Writ Petition no. 3786 of 2015.

¶31

10. Learned APP submitted that the report of the

¶32

4/9

¶33

police was called by the respondent No. 3.
Particularly, the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon,
has not recommended for issuance of the licence in
favour of the petitioner because the offences
registered at the instance of petitioner seem to be
personal in nature.

¶34

11. From the record it is seen that the Circle
Officer of Parola Division has made enquiry and
submitted its report to the Tahsildar. Tahsildar
forwarded the same to respondent No. 3. Likewise, the
police inspector of Parola police station has made
enquiry and submitted his report dated 25.02.2015 to
the Superintendent of Police. On perusal of the report
of both the officers i.e. Circle Officer and the Police
Inspector of Parola police station, it appears that
they have made enquiry in reference to the various
points and both of them have consistently recommended
for issuance of arms licence in favour of the
petitioner. Inspite of the favourable report in favour
of the petitioner, the concerned Superintendent of
Police has not recommended for arms licence. No doubt,
the Superintendent of Police can differ the finding or
the opinion of the reporting officer, provided, the
Superintendent of Police has made separate enquiry by

¶35

5/9

¶36

WP 984 16.odt

¶37

appointing officer to that effect and arrived at a
different conclusion.

¶38

12. To consider the relief claimed by the

¶39

petitioner, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions
of section 14 of the Arms Act.

¶40

"1. Notwithstanding anything in section 13, licensing
authority shall refuse to grant-

¶41

(a) a license under section 3, section 4, or section
5 where such license is required in respect of any
prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition:

¶42

(b) a license in any other case under Chapter II,-

¶43

(i) where such license is required by a person
whom then licensing authority has reason to
believe-

¶44

(1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any
other law for the time being in force from
acquiring, having in his possession or
carrying any arms or ammunition, or

¶45

(2) to be of unsound mind, or

¶46

(3) to be for any reason unfit for a
license under this Act, or

¶47

(ii) where the licensing authority deems it
necessary for the security of the public peace
or for public safety to refuse to grant such
license.

¶48

2. The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant
any license to any person merely on the ground that
such person does not own or possess sufficient
property.

¶49

3Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a
license to any person it shall record in writing the
reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on
demand a brief statement of the same unless in any

¶50

6/9

¶51

WP 984 16.odt

¶52

case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it
will not be in the public interest to furnish such
statement.

¶53

13. Looking to the above provisions it is very much
clear that specific grounds have been mentioned in the
said section on which the application for licence would
be refused. It could thus be seen that the discretion
has to be exercised by the authority in accordance with
the provisions of the Act. The licence can be refused
by the authority if the authority has reason to believe
that the person applying is prohibited by the said Act
or by any other law for the time being in force from
acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any
arms or ammunition, or if he is found to be of unsound
mind, or for any reason unfit for a licence under the
said Act, or where the licensing authority deems it
necessary for the security of the public peace or for
public safety to refuse to grant such licence.

¶54

14. Looking to the aforesaid provisions of the Act

¶55

it is crystal clear that the authority shall not refuse
the licence other than the ground mentioned in Section
14 of the Act. No doubt, the licensing authority can
refuse the licence to a person on the ground of
security of public peace or public safety.

¶56

7/9

¶57

WP 984 16.odt

¶58

15. On perusal of the reasons recorded by the
respondent No. 3 as well as respondent No. 2, no where
it is explained or mentioned in the order that the
licence is refused to the petitioner on the ground of
security of public peace or for public safety. On
perusal of provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 14,
the licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any

¶59

licence to any person merely on the ground that such
person does not own or possess sufficient property.
Herein the present case, arms licence is refused on one
of the ground that the yearly income of the petitioner

¶60

was only to the extent of Rs. 4,11,942/-. This

¶61

finding/reason is also contrary to the provisions of
Section 14(2) of the Arms Act. Consequently, the
impugned orders do not stand. The writ petition thus
deserves to be allowed. Hence following order is
passed.

¶62

O R D E R

¶63

i) Writ Petition is allowed.

¶64

ii) Order passed by respondent No.3 dated
11.02.2015 and the order passed by the
respondent No. 2 dated 27.04.2016 are
hereby quashed and set aside.

¶65

8/9

¶66

WP 984 16.odt iii) Respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to issue arms licence to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order.

¶67

16. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Writ
Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶68

mkd

¶69

9/9

Ashok S/O Dyayaram Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok S/O Dyayaram Patil 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahebrao Nana Korde Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Anr.

Namdev Sitaram Attarde (Mahajan) Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.T.P.H. NO-1, Jalgaon and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Rangnath Jagannath Shelke

Badrinath S/O. Udaysing Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pushpalata W/O. Suresh Zarekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Suresh S/O. Bajarang Zarekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.