Bombay High Court
Prashant S/O. Pravin Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 19 December, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
633.2016Cri.WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.633 of 2016
Prashant s/o. Pravin Gaikwad,
Age 26 Yrs., Occ.Service
Jr. Clerk in Irrigation Department,
R/o. Opp. Collector Office, Girna Colony,
Jalgaon,Tq.and Dist.Jalgaon. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Home Ministry, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
3. The Collector,
Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Syed Masood Chand, Advocate for the
petitioner
Mr.S.Y.Mahajan, Additional P.P. for the
Respondent nos.1 to 3 / State
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.
Reserved on : 24.11.2016
Pronounced on : 19.12.2016
633.2016Cri.WP.odt
JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:
1. This Writ Petition takes exception
to the judgment and order dated 23rd November,
2015 passed by respondent no.2 Divisional
Commissioner, Nashik in Appeal No.12 of 2015
wherein the order dated 17th April, 2015
passed by the respondent no.3 Collector is
confirmed. There is also prayer seeking
directions to respondent no.2 to grant
license to the petitioner against the sports
category on the basis of the application
dated 22nd May, 2013.
2. It appears that the petitioner
herein filed the application along with
documents to respondent no.3, seeking
permission of gun license for the purpose of
crop protection and target practice of
sports on 22nd May, 2013. It is further the
case of the petitioner that on 23rd January,
2015, the Police Authority submitted report
633.2016Cri.WP.odt
and gave no objection for issuance of the
permission to gun license. On 19th June, 2013,
the Tahsildar, Jalgaon, has also submitted
report and no objection is given by the said
authority for issuance of gun license.
3. It is further the case of the
petitioner that the father of the petitioner
was a license holder of the gun which came to
be returned on 24th August, 2009, to the
Police Authority due to death of the father
of the petitioner on 19th December, 2008.
It appears that, respondent no.3 Collector
rejected request of the petitioner. Being
aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the
Arms Act to respondent no.2 and challenged
the order of Collector. However, the said
Appeal came to be rejected on 23rd November,
2015. Hence this Writ Petition.
633.2016Cri.WP.odt
4. The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
a sports person and he is the member of the
Jalgaon District Rifle Association. The said
Association is affiliated to the Maharashtra
Rifle Association. The petitioner is
honoured with gold medal in shooting at the
District and State level competition. He
requires gun license for target practice and
crop protection. It is submitted that in fact
both the authorities have rejected the
application of the petitioner for gun license
keeping in view his prayer only for crop
protection and agricultural land, ignoring
that the petitioner needs said license even
for the target practice. He invites our
attention to the Government Gazette dated
06.03.2013, which is annexed at Exhibit-J,
and submits that the provisions of the said
Gazette clearly indicate that the person, who
633.2016Cri.WP.odt
is affiliated to the District Rifle, State
Rifle or Indian Rifle Association is entitled
for gun license on certain conditions.
5. He further submits that sub-section
(3) of Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959,
provides that any citizen can apply for gun
i.e. smooth bore gun having barrel of not
less than twenty inches in length for sports.
The petitioner applied from the said
category. However, the authorities did not
consider his application from the said
category. It is submitted that the
petitioner, being eligible for gun license,
applied for the same and the police authority
and the Tahsildar granted no objection
certificate/recommendation. However, the
respondent nos.2 and 3 did not consider the
report of the Police Officer and the
Tahsildar. Therefore, relying upon the
pleadings in the petition and annexures
thereto, the learned counsel appearing for
633.2016Cri.WP.odt
the petitioner submits that the Petition
deserves to be allowed.
6. On the other hand, the learned APP
appearing for the respondent - State submits
that the petitioner has submitted 7/12
extract of the agricultural land bearing Gat
No.31 situate at Amnor Gondi [Rithi], Taluka
Katol, District Nagpur and the petitioner has
shown his residence at Girna Colony, Jalgaon,
District Jalgaon. Therefore, it is beyond
comprehension that as to how the petitioner
can protect the crops on the agricultural
land situate at Amnor Gondi [Rithi], Taluka
Katol, District Nagpur. It is submitted that
the petitioner has not produced any
certificate showing that he had participated
in any of the games approved by the Indian
National Rifle Association. He had merely
produced certificate which shows that he has
participated in Taluka / District Level
shooting Championship at Jalgaon.
633.2016Cri.WP.odt
Therefore, the said certificate cannot be
considered for grant of gun license.
Moreover, the petitioner does not come under
any of the provisions made in the
Notification no. 548 dated 08.03.2013 and
published in Indian Gazette on 06.09.2013,
wherein guidelines are issued for issuance of
license and ammunition to the sports, hence,
the said application of the petitioner was
rejected.
7. It is further submitted that merely
because father of the petitioner was earlier
granted license by the authority, there is no
provision to suggest that the petitioner is
entitled to have a gun license since his
father was possessing the same. It is
submitted that reliance placed by the
petitioner on the provisions of the Rule 131
of the Rules issued by the State Government
in Maharashtra Shastra Adhiniyam, Niyam
Pustika is misplaced in the fact of the case.
633.2016Cri.WP.odt
It is not mandatory as per the said rules
that if a father is having gun license, son
must also be given such license.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and the learned APP
appearing for the respondent - State. With
their able assistance, perused the pleadings
in the petition, annexures thereto and the
reply filed by the respondent - State. We
have carefully perused the reasons assigned
by the District Collector in the impugned
order dated 17th April, 2015. The relevant
portion of the said order reads thus:
vtZnkj ;kauh lknj dsysY;k dkxni+=kaps ckjdkbZus
voyksdu dsys vlrk] vtZnkjkdMs ekSts veusjxksanh
¼fjBh½ rkyqdk dksVksy ftYgk ukxiwj ;sFks 'ksrh
vlY;kps fnlwu ;srs- lcc vtZnkj ;kauk 'ksrh
iz;kstuklkBh canwd ijokuk nsrk ;s.kkj ukgh- vtZnkjkus
Hkkjrh; jk"Vªh; jk;Qy vlksf'k,'kups ekU;rk
vlysY;k dks.kR;kgh [ksGke/;s Hkkx ?ksrY;kps izek.ki=
lknj dsysys ukgh- rlsp Hkkjrkps jkti= fn-
633.2016Cri.WP.odt
[email protected]@2013 ph izdkf'kr vf/klqpuk Ø-548] fn-
[email protected]@2013 vUo;s [ksGkMwlkBh |ko;kP;k 'kL=
xksGk o 'kL=kckcr lqpuk ueqn dsysys vkgs- lnjhy
jkti=ke/khy O;fDr fdaok O;DrhP;k izoxkZckcr
|ko;kP;k lqVckcr ueqn vkgs- vtZnkj gs ueqn
jkti=kP;k dks.kR;kgh O;DrhP;k izoxkZe/;s ;sr ukghr-
lcc vtZnkj ;kauk Li/kkZ iz;kstuklkBh canwd ijokuk
nsrk ;s.kkj ukgh-
Upon careful perusal of the reasons
assigned by the said authority, there is no
discussion on the report submitted by the
concerned Police Station on 23rd January,
2015, recommending the case of the petitioner
for granting gun license for self protection.
The petitioner has placed on record
certificate issued by the Jalgaon District
Rifle Association, Jalgaon. It appears that
the petitioner did participate in the
Taluka/District level shooting championship
held at Jalgaon and secured 1st position and
received gold medal.
633.2016Cri.WP.odt
9. Be that as it may, since the order
passed by the Collector suffers from non-
assigning sufficient reasons as indicated
hereinabove, in our opinion the ends of
justice would be met in case the impugned
orders are quashed and set aside and the
petitioner is given further opportunity to
file the application afresh before the
concerned authority for gun license.
Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 23rd
November, 2015 passed by the respondent no.2
Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in Appeal No.
12 of 2015 and the order dated 17th April,
2015 passed by the respondent no.3 Collector
are quashed and set aside.
10. The petitioner will be at liberty to
file application afresh along with copies of
the documents within four weeks from today.
In case such application is filed, the
concerned Authority after adhering to the
relevant procedure and after summoning the
633.2016Cri.WP.odt
report from the concerned Police Station and
also other Competent Authorities involved in
the process as per the procedure take
expeditious decision afresh without being
influenced by the reasons assigned in the
earlier orders on its own merits in
accordance with law and communicate the said
decision to the petitioner.
11. With the above observations, the
Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
[K.K.SONAWANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
