High Court

Legal Reasoning

( 1 ) crwp1344.23IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1344 OF 2023Ganesh s/o. Bhagirath Mundalik..PetitionerAge.-33 years, Occ. Business,R/o. Gadhe Galli, Belapur Bk.,Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.VERSUS1.The Collector, Ahmednagar..RespondentsCompetent Authority underArms Act.2.The Divisional Commissioner,Nashik Dn., Nashik.3.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Inspector,Shrirampur Police Station, Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.Mr. B.R. Waramaa, Advocate for the petitioner.Ms. A.S. Deshmukh, APP for the respondents-State.CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.RESERVED ON:07.08.2025PRONOUNCED ON:08.09.2025J U D G M E N T :-01.Heard. By order dated 21.01.2025 this Court had issued Rulein this petition. Therefore, same is taken up for final disposal by consentof the parties. ( 2 ) crwp1344.2302.This petition is filed challenging a judgment and order dated01.07.2022 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, NashikDivision, Nashik, in Arm License Appeal No. 35 of 2018, therebyconfirming an order passed by the learned Collector, Ahmednagar. Thelearned Collector, Ahmednagar by way of his order dated 06.09.2021refused to grant arm license to the petitioner.03.It is a case of the petitioner that he is having agriculturalproperty. He stays there with his family in the agricultural land. Hisfather late Bhagirath Rangnath Mundlik was having Arm License and waspossessing “Entered One 32 Bore Revolver No. A2334/08. His fatherdied on 15.11.2016. He had already executed an affidavit on 21.08.2012before the Tahsildar, Shrirampur, wherein he has expressed that after hisdeath, the license be given to the present petitioner. The petitioner isrequired to look after the agricultural land. He is also having a gold shopand a water purification plant. It is for this reason, he applied for licenseby filing application dated 25.01.2017. However, the learned Collectorrejected the application, stating that there is no convincing reason forgiving license, no grave and imminent threat is shown and there wascrime registered against the petitioner on the basis of which he faced ( 3 ) crwp1344.23trial. It is also considered that he has been acquitted from the saidoffence. However, it is considered that the report from theSuperintendent of Police is negative.04.The petitioner approached the learned DivisionalCommissioner, challenging order passed by the learned Collector. Thelearned Divisional Commissioner, Nashik by way of the impugned order,rejected the appeal, confirming the order. It is also stated that there isno grave and imminent threat shown to the life of the petitioner. Hereiterated the reason that there is negative report given by theSuperintendent of Police, while dismissing the appeal.05.Learned Advocate Mr. Waramaa vehemently argued thatlooking to the scheme of sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, it mandatesthat the license be issued to a person unless there are circumstancesexisting for not granting such license. He submits that in the presentcase, both the Authorities have recorded totally perverse finding. Merely,negative report from the Superintendent of Police cannot be used torefuse the license. He submits that in other cases some parties havebeen granted license liberally just for asking. Though there was offencepending against the petitioner, he has been acquitted in 2018 itself. That ( 4 ) crwp1344.23ground is no more available to the Authorities. He thus prays forallowing the petition. 06.Learned APP argued that it is for the Authorities to considerthe case for grant of license on its own merits. Same is properlyconsidered by the Authorities. There is criminal history against thepresent petitioner. The Authorities have discretion in the matter ofgranting license. In the present case both the Authorities have properlyexercised the discretion. 07.In the present case, the petitioner while applying for thelicense has only stated that his father was possessing a license. Thefather of the petitioner had given an affidavit to the Tahsildar stating thatthe license be transferred in the name of the petitioner. The father diedin 2016. In the application the only reason stated is that the petitionerpossesses agricultural land and he is having gold shop and waterpurification plant. The Superintendent of Police made enquiry and filed areport. It is concluded in the report that there is no strong reason togrant license to the petitioner for his self-defense. The learned Collectorhas discussed that there is no sufficient and proper reason stated in theapplication making out a case for grant of license. It is observed in the ( 5 ) crwp1344.23order that for the gold shop, the petitioner can engage a guard with armand accepted the report of the Superintendent of Police. He furtherconsidered section 13(2A)(2) of the Arms Act.08.The learned Divisional Commissioner has considered Rule 25of the Arms Rule, 2006, which deals with grant of license to legal heirs.It provides for giving license to the legal heirs nominated by such person.It provides that the Authority may grant license to such legal heirs if theeligibility conditions under the Act and the Rules are fulfilled and thereare no adverse remarks in the police report. The Rule is quoted under :-“25. Grant of licenses to legal heirs.(1)The licensing authority may grant a license -(a)after the death of the licensee, to his legal heir; or(b)in any other case, on the licensee attaining the age of seventyyears or on holding the firearm for twenty five years, whichever isearlier, to any legal heir nominated by him:Provided that notwithstanding the provisions contained in rule12 of these rules, the licensing authority may grant a license to suchlegal heir if the eligibility conditions under the Act and these rules arefulfilled by the said legal heir and there are no adverse remarks in thepolice report.(2)Where a licensee leaves behind more than one legal heir andthe legal heirs decide amongst themselves to retain the arm or armsof the deceased, one of the legal heirs nominated by all other legalheirs may apply for a license under sub-rule (1) along with thefollowing documents, namely:-(i) a declaration of no-objection from the remaining legal heirs;(ii)an indemnity bond executed by the applicant giving full detailsof the license and the arm or arms endorsed thereupon; and ( 6 ) crwp1344.23(iii)a copy of the death certificate of the deceased licensee.(3)Where the legal heirs decide to dispose of the arm or armsendorsed on the license of the deceased licensee, they may apply tothe licensing authority for grant of a limited period permission to sellthe arm or arms, within the time allowed by such authority, to anylicensed dealer or to any other person entitled to possess an armunder these rules.”.He has thus considered that the Superintendent of Police hasgiven adverse report and rejected the appeal.09.The learned Advocate for the petitioner has stated that inother cases the licenses are given liberally and merely for asking and it isonly in the case of the petitioner, no license is given.10.This Court finds that merely in any other cases, licenses aregiven liberally is no reason to grant license to the petitioner. The learnedDivisional Commissioner has considered that while giving license to thelegal heirs, there should be no adverse report form the Police. In thepresent case, there is adverse report from the police.11.It is rightly criticized by the learned Advocate for thepetitioner that while passing the order, it is not for the Authorities toobserve as to how care can be taken of the property. Certainly, this ( 7 ) crwp1344.23Court finds that the observation that the petitioner can engage servicesof armed guard is not warranted. However, that itself would not makethe order perverse. At the most, said observation can be said to beredundant.12.This Court finds that the learned Divisional Commissioner hasrightly considered the Rule 25 and has passed order. Reliance is placedby the petitioner on the communication by the Joint Secretary to theGovernment of India to the Secretaries (Home Department), all States,UTs dated 06.04.2010. The learned Joint Secretary has given guidelinesfor grant of licence/renewal of such licence. This Court finds that fromthe said guidelines, this Court does not find that this Court can get anysupport. Clause “a” of the communication reads as under :-“a)Those persons who face grave and imminent threat totheir lives by mere reason of being residents of ageographical area (or areas) where terrorists are most activeand/or are held to be prime ‘targets’ in the eyes of terroristsand/or are known to be inimical to the aims and objects ofthe terrorists and as such face danger to their lives.”13.Reliance of the petitioner on the judgment passed by thisCourt dated 12.01.2018 in Cri. Writ Petition No. 984 of 2016 is also notof much help to the petitioner. In that case, this Court had observed thatthough licensing Authorities can refuse license to a person on the ground ( 8 ) crwp1344.23of security, peace or public safety, the Authority shall not refuse to grantlicense merely on the ground that such person does not own or possesssufficient property. In that case, the Authority had given reason that thepetitioner in that case was not having sufficient property. 14.This Court finds that there is nothing to support the case ofthe petitioner. No grave or imminent danger is shown to the life of thepetitioner. The Authorities are certainly vested with discretion. Unless itis shown that the discretion is exercised in perverse manner, this Courtneed not interfere with the same. It is for that reason, the report forSuperintendent of Police was called while considering such application.This Court finds that no case is made out for allowing the petition. Thepetition deserves to be dismissed.15.Hence, this Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule standsdischarged.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2025/Sep25/crwp1344.23