High Court
Legal Reasoning
903-wp-27-2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD903 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.27 OF 2025Vikramsinh Rajendra KaleAge: 41 years, Occu.: Business,R/o. 15, Chandrama, Vidyanagari,Datta Mandir Chowk, Deopur, Dhule. .. PetitionerVersus1.The State of Maharashtra2.The District Magistrate, Dhule.3.The Divisional Commissioner,Nashik Division, Nashik. .. Respondents…Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. A. D. Wange, APP for the respondents/State.... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 18 SEPTEMBER 2025ORDER :.Present writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dated29.08.2023 bearing No.Kra/D/Kaksha/3/MAG-1/Kavi/461/2023 passedby respondent No.2 i.e. District Magistrate, Dhule cancelling the armslicence of the petitioner bearing No.DHL-02/2006 and the order of theAppellate Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashikin Arms Licence Appeal No.18 of 2023 dated 21.05.2024, therebyconfirming the order passed by respondent No.2.[1] 903-wp-27-2025.odt2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Joydeep Chatterji for the petitionerand learned APP Mr. A. D. Wange for the respondents/State.3.Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner is a businessman, who is running a restaurant which includesa Permit Room and Beer Bar in Dhule city. In his capacity as suchbusinessman and the person running restaurant, he has to deal withheavy cash transaction and carry substantial amount to the bank daily.Therefore, he was apprehending danger to his life and for his defence hehas applied for a licence of arm i.e. Pistol in 2006 to respondent No.2.Licence bearing No.DHL-02/2006 was given to him on 17.03.2006 for0.32 Bore Pistol. He has renewed the licence from time to time and it isvalid up to 31.12.2025. The petitioner had surrendered the weaponwhenever there was order from the police to deposit it due to the code ofconduct on account of elections. Respondent No.2 had then issued ashow cause notice on 27.02.2023 to the petitioner calling upon him toremain present on 28.02.2023 to explain why his licence should not becancelled as Superintendent of Police, Dhule has given a reportregarding recommending cancellation of the licence in view of criminalcase pending against the petitioner. Another show cause notice wasissued on 08.03.2023 and ultimately, he had given a reply to the noticesdated 08.03.2023, 27.02.2023 and 24.03.2023. The petitioner has beenacquitted in FIR bearing Crime No.26 of 2017 under Section 65(e) of the[2] 903-wp-27-2025.odtMaharashtra Prohibition Act i.e. in S.C.C. No.2701 of 2017, whereasanother case i.e. Crime No.82 of 2022 for the offence punishable underSections 326, 324, 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code was underinvestigation, on the day of notice. The petitioner’s reply was notconsidered at all by the District Magistrate. It has been wronglymentioned in the order that the said license was renewed upto31.12.2023 only. Absolutely no reasons were assigned by the DistrictMagistrate, Dhule for cancelling the licence and he proceeded only withthe report/recommendation that was given. The reply was notconsidered at all. All these facts were informed to the Appellate Authorityalso, however, the Appellate Authority had only taken note of thedischarge of the petitioner from S.C.C. No.2701 of 2017 on 26.04.2023.Merely because there is discretion and power with the authority to cancelthe licence, such authority cannot cancel the same. There wasabsolutely no violation of conditions to the licence by the presentpetitioner. In the offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code alsothere was no allegations that he has used the Pistol. Therefore, theaction of cancellation of the licence and the dismissal of the appeal ofthe petitioner is wrong and illegal. Therefore, it deserves to be set aside.4.Per contra, learned APP relies on the affidavit ofMrs. Bhagyashree Vispute, the present District Collector, Dhule. Thesaid affidavit reiterates the action taken and it is stated that the licence[3] 903-wp-27-2025.odthas been cancelled in exercise of licencing authority’s powers underSection 17(4) of the Arms Act and page 136 and 147 of the MaharashtraArms Rules. When the first notice was issued on 27.02.2023, there wasno order of discharge from the first offence by the Magistrate. The saidorder came to be passed on 26.04.2023. Even then the second offencei.e. under Section 326 etc. of Indian Penal Code is still pending and inthe public interest, the District Magistrate has cancelled the licence.5.Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner relies on thedecision of this Court in Ajay Jayawant Bhosale vs. TheCommissioner of Police, Pune and others, [Criminal Writ PetitionNo.594 of 2013 decided on 15.07.2016] wherein it has been observedthat :-“12.The right to life and liberty are guaranteed underArticle 21 of the Constitution of India. Arms licence is grantedfor personal safety and security after due enquiry by theauthorities in accordance with provisions contained in theArms Act, 1959. The provisions of Arms Act with regard tosuspension or cancellation of Arms licence cannot beinvoked lightly in an arbitrary manner. The provisions of theArms Act particularly Section 13 to 17 indicate that once alicence is granted under the Act, the same shall be renewedfrom time to time unless there exist a ground of refusal asenumerated under Section 14 of the Act. Protection to life,property of citizen is responsibility of the State. It is onlywhen person apprehends that machinery of State would notcome to his help for protection, he/she applies for licence[4] 903-wp-27-2025.odtunder the Act. The provisions of Section 17 A of the Arms Actindicate that arms licence can be cancelled or suspended ifthe licensing authority finds it necessary for the security ofpublic peace or public safety. Merely because a criminalcase is pending, the provisions of Section 17 of the Arms Actwould not be attracted. Such provisions would be attracted incase the licensing authority finds that continuance of licenceis detrimental to public peace or public security and safety.But the authority concerned will have to record a finding thathow and under what circumstances and in what mannerpossession of the arms licence could be contrary to theprovisions of Section 17 B of the Arms Act.”6.It will not be out of place to mention here that in the show causenotices those were issued as well as in both the orders, it was statedthat the licence of the present petitioner was valid upto 31.12.2023 only,but along with the petition the photocopy of the licence was annexed inwhich there was an entry that was renewed upto 31.12.2025. Therefore,we had called the original register from District Magistrate’s office andwe found that in fact it was renewed upto 31.12.2025. This fact alsotherefore indicates that the authorities had not even applied their mindas to for how much period the licence was renewed. The renewal hasbeen done on 23.02.2021. Now, the learned APP upon instructionssubmits that due to inadvertence the date of renewal was mentioned as31.12.2023. It is then also to be noted that in the notice reply, thepetitioner had stated that the licence has been renewed upto[5] 903-wp-27-2025.odt31.12.2025, still in both the orders the date has been stated as31.12.2023. When it comes to cancellation of a validly renewed licence,then the concerned authority has to take more precautions as it ispresumed that at the time of renewal every precaution would have beentaken. Certainly, when the renewal was done on 23.02.2021 one offencei.e. Crime No.26 of 2017 was pending. It was pending when the earlierrenewal was made on 14.02.2018 till 31.12.2020. Now, when the licencewas renewed in spite of having one offence on both the occasions, thependency of that offence as on the date of the impugned order dated29.08.2023 (even if we consider that the District Magistrate was unawareabout the disposal of the said case) could not have been the ground forcancellation. Along with the reply to the show cause notice, thepetitioner on 22.08.2023 had also given the copy of the order of hisdischarge from Crime No.26 of 2017. That was also not considered byboth the authorities properly. 7.Now, the question is in respect of Crime No.82 of 2022 for theoffence punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323, 504, 506 of IndianPenal Code. It is definitely pending. The copy of the FIR was perused,but it can be seen that there was no use of the gun alleged in the saidFIR. Further, the impugned order dated 29.08.2023 is contrary to theobservations in Ajay Jayawant Bhosale (Supra). The petitioner in hisreply has relied on the said decision. The authorities appears to have not[6]
Legal Reasoning
903-wp-27-2025.odteven taken care to read the observations and the order dated29.08.2023 passed by learned District Magistrate, Dhule is withoutrecording a finding as to how and under what circumstances and in whatmanner, possession of Arm’s licence could be contrary to the provisionsof Section 17 B of the Arms Act. Mere use of the word public safety orpublic security is not sufficient. Except the recommendation, thereappears to be no other document from the police, which would show thatcontinuation of the licence and possession of the arm would bedetrimental to the public security and public safety. Therefore, both theorders i.e. the order passed by learned District Magistrate on 29.08.2023and by Divisional Commissioner/Appellate Authority on 21.05.2024 areillegal and, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set aside. Wetherefore proceed to pass the following order :-ORDER.Criminal Writ Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGEscm[7]