High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 932.WP-13308-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 13308 OF 2024RAMESH SHRIRAM YADNYEKAR JOSHIVERSUSTHE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Amardeep F. Naiknaware h/f Mr. Nimbalkar Aniruddha AAGP for Respondents/State : Mr. A.V. Lavte… CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.DATE :4th OCTOBER 2025PER COURT :1.The Petitioner was allotted the gun license vide license no.JLN-674-2013. The Superintendent of Police, Jalna had submitted areport dated 21.03.2022 to the Collector, for cancellation of thelicense of the Petitioner. Accordingly the Collector, Jalna vide itsorder dated 26.04.2022 was pleased to cancel the gun license of thePetitioner. 2.The Petitioner being aggrieved by the said rejection, washad filed an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner onthe ground of violation of principles of natural justice as thePetitioner was not heard before passing of the order dated26.04.2022. The learned Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated11.10.2022, was pleased to set aside the order of the Collector anddirected that the Petitioner be granted an opportunity of hearing, and 2 932.WP-13308-2024.doc thereafter a fresh order be passed. After granting opportunity ofhearing to the Petitioner, the Collector vide order dated 15.02.2023thus suspended the license. The said order dated 15.02.2023 passedby the Collector afresh, was challenged before the DivisionalCommissioner alongwith application for condonation of delay. Thelearned Divisional Commissioner vide its order dated 05.03.2024 waspleased to reject the application for condonation of delay and thusdismissed the appeal. 3.The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.03.2024passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, rejecting theapplication for condonation of delay as well as appeal under Section18 of the Arms Act. The Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Naiknawareholding for Mr. Nimbalkar submits that sufficient reasons were givenin the application for condonation of delay, however the learnedDivisional Commissioner has failed to take into consideration the saidreasons given which has caused the delay of filing an appeal. It is hissubmission that the delay is not inordinate and deliberate. Thus thesame ought to have been condoned in the interest of justice.4.It is his further submission that the learned DivisionalCommissioner has though dismissed the appeal on the ground ofdelay, has unnecessarily touched upon the merits of the matter andalso dismissed the appeal on merits. It is therefore his submissionthat the valuable right of the Petitioner is defeated by the non-consideration of the aforesaid facts by the learned Appellate Court.
Legal Reasoning
3 932.WP-13308-2024.doc 5.On the other hand, the learned APP Mr. Lavte stronglyopposes the Writ Petition. On behalf of all the Respondents, he hasalso filed a reply affidavit, thereby supporting the order passed by thelearned Divisional Commissioner which upheld the order of Collector,revoking license issued earlier in the name of Petitioner. Hevehemently submits that apart from the Petitioner not being eligiblefor holding of an arm license, the Petitioner was involved in variouscriminal offences registered against him over the period, whichdemonstrate his criminal tendency and indicate that he poses a threatto the maintenance of public order, peace, and tranquility..Learned APP further submits that even after the orderpassed by the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 05.03.2024,the Petitioner had again indulged into several offences which arementioned in the chart submitted in the affidavit dated 02.09.2025filed on behalf of the Assistant Police Inspector Maujpuri PoliceStation, Jalna. He further submits that the Petitioner has engagedhimself into the illegal sand excavation and there is every likelihoodthat if the arms license is renewed, the same may be used forcontinuation of such illegal activities by the Petitioner which wouldaid to establish his supremacy, resulting in disturbance of publicorder.6.I have gone through the impugned order passed by thelearned Divisional Commissioner and the grounds raised by thePetitioner in his appeal filed before the learned DivisionalCommissioner alongwith the condonation of delay application and 4 932.WP-13308-2024.doc also the affidavit filed by the Respondents herein.7.The argument of the learned Counsel Mr. AmardeepNaiknaware for the Petitioner is that the learned DivisionalCommissioner has in fact did not deal with the application forcondonation of application, neither referred to the groundsmentioned in the application for delay and has ventured into themerits of the appeal. According to the Counsel for the Petitioner, thelearned trial Court could not have done so particularly in view of thejudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 3 SCC525 in the matter of Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara Vs.Labour Court, Bhilwara and Another. It is further submitted by thelearned Counsel for the Petitioner that the criminal antecedents ofthe petitioner have been wrongly discussed by the learned DivisionalCommissioner, which reflects that he was influenced by the samewhile deciding the application for condonation of delay. 8.The perusal of the impugned order shows that the learnedDivisional Commissioner had only considered the submissions of thelearned Counsel for the Petitioner, application for condonation ofdelay and the submissions of the Respondents herein. The criminalantecedents reflected in the impugned order, were only the part ofthe submissions made by the Respondents herein and does notshow that the same was considered by the learnedDivisional Commissioner while passing the operative part. Thelearned Divisional Commissioner has found that the Petitioner has 5 932.WP-13308-2024.doc failed to provide any sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 288days. The learned Divisional Commissioner has further found that asthe Petitioner has failed to explain the delay by substantiating thesame through documentary evidence, the condonation of delayapplication of the Petitioner is dismissed.9.The perusal of the order passed by the learned DivisionalCommissioner would show that the learned Divisional Commissionerhad dismissed the appeal on delay as the same was not found withinlimitation. The contention of the Petitioner that the learnedDivisional Commissioner has even discussed the matter on merits, iswholly misconceived as the Counsel for the Petitioner hasmisunderstood the recording of the contentions of the Respondentsto be findings of the learned Divisional Commissioner. The findingsare restricted only to the insufficient reasons for condoning the delayand the dismissal of the same on the ground of inability to explainthe delay caused in filing the appeal under Section 18 of the ArmsAct. 10.It is seen from the record that even now the Petitioner hasfailed to give sufficient reasons to substantiate the reasons for whichthere was a delay caused in filing the appeal. Neither before thelearned Divisional Commissioner, nor before this Court the Petitionerhas provided any documentary evidence to prove his inability to filean appeal within limitation, before the learned DivisionalCommissioner. In my view therefore there is no error in the
Decision
6 932.WP-13308-2024.doc impugned order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner. Thelearned Divisional Commissioner has taken into consideration allaspects of the matter and after application of mind, has passed theimpugned order. The impugned order is therefore just, proper and ishereby maintained. The petition is devoid of substance on merits andis hereby dismissed. MEHROZ K. PATHAN JUDGENAJEEB..