High Court · 2025
Facts
*1* crwp1075o24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1075 OF 2024Rajendra @ Raju Jeevanlal Bamb,Age : 51 years, Occ : LIC Agent,R/at Lane No.7, Old Dhule, Subhash Nagar, Dhule-424001....PETITIONER-VERSUS-1.The State of Maharashtra.2.The Divisional Commissioner,Nashik Division, Nashik.Having office at Government Colony,Nashik-422101.3.The District Magistrate, Dhule.Having office at Garud Baug,Navnath Nagar, Dhule-424001.4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police(Home), Dhule.Having office at Navnath Nagar,Dhule 424001.5.The Police Office in-charge ofThe Azadnagar Police Station,Dhule.Having office at Lane No.7,Navnath Nagar, Dhule-424001....RESPONDENTS…Shri Abhishek R. Avachat, Advocate for the petitioner throughV.C.Shri D.B. Bhange, APP for the respondents/ State.… *2* crwp1075o24 CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.Reserved on : 24 September 2025Pronounced on : 29 September 2025JUDGMENT :-1.Heard.2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and byconsent of parties, heard finally.3.By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 04.04.2024passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division,Nashik, in Arms Licence Appeal No.17/2023 thereby, affirmingthe order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the District Magistrate,Dhule, revoking the petitioner’s Arms Licence No.10/2017.4.According to the petitioner, he was granted ArmsLicence No.10/2017 on 25.04.2017 and since then he has been inpossession of firearm i.e. pistol. The said arms licence wasregularly renewed from April 2017 to 31.12.2022. However, in2022, six criminal cases came to be registered against the *3* crwp1075o24petitioner with different police stations. Therefore, vide letterdated 18.03.2023 respondent No.5 Police Inspector throughrespondent No.4 Deputy Superintendent of Police, forwarded theproposal to respondent No.3 District Magistrate requesting forrevoking the petitioner’s arms licence. The said proceedings werecontested by the petitioner by filing his say dated 20.06.2023.However, respondent No.3, vide impugned order dated29.08.2023, revoked the arms licence. Being aggrieved by saidorder, the petitioner filed Arms Licence Appeal No.17/2023before respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner, which came tobe dismissed vide impugned order dated 04.04.2024. Hence, thispetition.5.Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted thatrespondent No.3 District Magistrate has virtually failed to giveany valid reason for revoking his licence. A glance at the saidorder would reveal that same is cryptic and unreasoned one.According to him, there was no material before both theauthorities below to arrive at any conclusion for revoking licenceand therefore, they ought not to have passed the impugnedorders. There was absolutely no material put forth by the Police
Legal Reasoning
*6* crwp1075o24passing impugned orders, no interference is called for inimpugned orders. He, accordingly, supported impugned ordersand prayed for dismissal of the petition.8.After hearing learned advocates, I have gonethrough impugned orders and records available. It is well settledposition of law that the authorities, while passing an order forrevocation of arms licence under Section 17(1)(b) of the ArmsAct, 1959, ought to have arrived at subjective satisfaction. In thisregard, learned advocate for the petitioner has rightly placedreliance on the judgment in Ajay Jayawant Bhosale (supra),wherein, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has observedin paragraph Nos.12 and 13 as under:-“12.The question, therefore, arises as to whether therewas sufficient material placed before theCommissioner of Police for arriving at subjectivesatisfaction that continuation of licence or renewalwould be endangering public peace or publicsafety. It seems that the show-cause notice wasissued by the Commissioner, Pune consequent tofiling of application by the petitioner to the HomeDepartment of the State Government for getting allIndia arms licence. Nevertheless at any stage thelicensing authority after getting subjectivelysatisfied and on the basis of material placed beforeit could revoke licence under Section 17 of the Actbut whether there was sufficient material with thelicensing authority to pass order of revocation. 13.The right to life and liberty are guaranteed under *7* crwp1075o24Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Armslicence is granted for personal safety and securityafter due enquiry by the authorities in accordancewith provisions contained in the Arms Act, 1959.The provisions of Arms Act with regard tosuspension or cancellation of Arms licence cannotbe invoked lightly in an arbitrary manner. Theprovisions of the Arms Act particularly Section11/14 WP594.13.sxw 13 to 17 indicate that once alicence is granted under the Act, the same shall berenewed from time to time unless there exist aground of refusal as enumerated under Section 14of the Act. Protection to life, property of citizen isresponsibility of the State. It is only when personapprehends that machinery of State would notcome to his help for protection, he/she applies forlicence under the Act. The provisions of Section17-A of the Arms Act indicate that arms licencecan be cancelled or suspended if the licensingauthority finds it necessary for the security ofpublic peace or public safety. Merely because acriminal case is pending, the provisions of Section17 of the Arms Act would not be attracted. Suchprovisions would be attracted in case the licensingauthority finds that continuance of licence isdetrimental to public peace or public security andsafety. But the authority concerned will have torecord a finding that how and under whatcircumstances and in what manner possession ofarms licence could be contrary to the provisions ofSection 17-B of the Arms Act. Each case isrequired to be considered on its own merits.” 9.As is observed in Ram Murti Madhukar vs. DistrictMagistrate, Sitapur, reported in 1999 CriLJ 3712 : 1999 All LJ1518, it is also well settled that mere pendency of criminal casesand apprehension of abuse of arms licence, are not sufficientgrounds for revoking the licence under Section 17(3)(b) of the *8* crwp1075o24Arms Act, 1959.10.In the light of above factors, I am of the view thatthe authorities below have failed in revoking the petitioner’sarms licence. As such, the petition succeeds. The Writ Petition isallowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside.11.Rule is made absolute in the above terms. kps (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)
Arguments
*4* crwp1075o24Authorities before the adjudicating authorities below to arrive atsubjective satisfaction or strong conclusion that the petitioner’sarms licence needs to be revoked. Learned advocate vehementlysubmitted that the sole ground for revocation of licence is thatthere are multiple cases registered against the petitioner and hemay pressurize witnesses of said cases. However, mereregistration of criminal cases without there being sufficient othermaterial to show that there is direct threat to public at large orthere is breach of public peace or harm to public safety, is noground to revoke arms licence.6.In support of his above submissions, learnedadvocate for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decisionsrendered by this Court in Ajay Jayawant Bhosale vs.Commissioner of Police, Pune City and others, reported in(2016) 3 AIR Bom R (Cri) 90 : (2016) 4 Bom CR (Cri) 153 andShri Paresh Diliprao Kolhe vs. The State of Maharashtra andanother, Criminal Writ Petition No.0117/2018 (AurangabadBench) decided vide order dated 05.02.2019. He submitted thatin these judgments, this Court was pleased to observe thatSection 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, authorizes the Licensing *5* crwp1075o24Authority to cancel or revoke the licence if he deems it necessaryfor security of public peace or for public safety. Section 17(3)(b)indicates that in case the licencing authority is subjectivelysatisfied that in a given case, if continuation of licence endangerspublic peace or public safety then he is empowered to cancel orrevoke the licence. According to learned advocate for thepetitioner, in the case in hand, offences which are registeredagainst the petitioner in 2022, are mostly registered for offencespunishable under the provisions of the Money Lending Act andancillary provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, saidoffences are not pertaining to disturbance to public peace orpublic safety and as such, no occasion has arisen to revoke thearms licence. He, therefore, prayed for quashing the impugnedorders.7.Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed thepetition. He submitted that the impugned orders are proper,correct and within parameters of law. The authorities below havegiven sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner beforepassing impugned orders. Since the authorities did not commitany mistake or error while adjudicating the proceedings and