Sunil Ramrao Chaudhari vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4788 Bom

                                            1                       WP 9954 of 2013

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                              
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                      
                         10 WRIT PETITION NO. 9954 OF 2013

                        SUNIL RAMRAO CHAUDHARI
                                 VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS




                                                     
                                          --------

         Shri. Manoj U. Shelke, Advocate, for petitioner.




                                       
         Shri. S.N. Kendre, Assistant Government Pleader, for
                             
         respondent Nos.1 to 4.

                                         ----------
                            
                                     CORAM:           T.V. NALAWADE, J.

                                     DATE        :    22 AUGUST 2016
      


         ORDER:

1) The petition is filed to challenge the decision

given by the appellate authority, respondent No.2, in

Appeal No.927/2011 in the matter of grant of firearms

licence to the petitioner. The Collector had rejected the

application and this decision is confirmed by the appellate

authority. Heard both the sides.

2) The petitioner had applied before the District

Magistrate, Parbhani for giving him licence to have

firearms for self defence. The matter was referred to the

2 WP 9954 of 2013

District Superintendent of Police for giving the report in

respect of necessity to grant the licence under section 13

of the Arms Act, 1959. The report was given that the

petitioner was not involved in any incident on the basis of

which it can be said that he needs firearms for self

defence and other wise also there was no necessity to give

licence in respect of firearms to the petitioner.

3) It is the case of the petitioner that other Police

Officer like Deputy Superintendent of Police of L.C.B. had

given positive report but this report was not considered.

He submitted that the petitioner owns one petrol pump

and due to recent incidents he feels that the cash

collected at this petrol pump needs to be carried to bank

with some protection and for that there is necessity of

such firearms. He is also an agriculturist and his land is

situated at some distance from the residential locality and

so on that ground also he wants firearms.

4) It appears that the wife of the petitioner is

Councillor of local body. There is only apprehension to the

petitioner that the cash amount which is generally

3 WP 9954 of 2013

collected at the petrol pump will be taken away by the

dacoits as such incidents did take place in Parbhani

district. It needs to be kept in mind that the petitioner is

owner of the petrol pump and it is not his case that he

remains at the petrol pump round the clock. He wants fire

arm for protection at his godown also. But he must have

appointed some watchman and such fire arm cannot be

handed over to third party like watchman. There is no

record of any dispute of the petitioner with anybody,

though in the past he had given complaint against

unknown persons that stake of his food grains was set to

fire.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed

reliance on some observations of other High Courts in

some cases and the cases are (1) AIR 1972 Kerala 202

(K.S. Abdulla v. District Collector), (2) AIR 1982

Allahabad 283 (Ram Khelawan Misra v. State of U.P. );

and, (3) 2005 Cri.L.J. 3178 (B. Ganesh Prasad v. Board of

Revenue). The provisions of the Arms Act are considered

by the High Courts and in one case it is laid down that the

licence can be refused only on the grounds mentioned in

4 WP 9954 of 2013

section 14 of the Arms Act 1959. With due respect this

Court cannot agree with this proposition. The provision of

section 13 needs to be considered first which is for grant

of licence and it shows that satisfaction of the licensing

authority is necessary for issuance of the licence and for

that good reason needs to be shown by the applicant. In

the present matter the reason given by authority is

sufficient to presume that the authority is not satisfied

that the present petitioner has good reason for obtaining

the licence. In view of the aforesaid material and

circumstances this Court holds that the authority has not

committed any error in giving such decision. This Court

while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction is not expected

to make more inquiry with regard to the satisfaction of the

authority in this regard as necessary reason is given by

the authority.

6) Provision of section 14 has different purpose

and it shows that irrespective of anything mentioned in

section 13 of the Act, the authority shall refuse to grant

licence if there are circumstances, grounds, as mentioned

in section 14 in existence. This provision has restricted

5 WP 9954 of 2013

the powers of the authority and when there are such

circumstances the authority is not expected to use power

given to it. So, this Court holds that the observations

made by the other High Courts in this regard in one of the

cases cited supra cannot be used in favour of the

petitioner. In the result, the petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

                              ig             (T.V. NALAWADE, J. )
                            
      
   



         rsl