Govind Dattrao Deshmukh vs The Divisional Commissioner ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4012 Bom

                                             1                      WP-7486.16.doc


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 7486 OF 2016




                                                        
              Govind s/o Dattrao Deshmukh,
              Age : 35 years, occup. Business,
              R/o : 111/2, Kondiba Niwas,




                                                       
              Mulgaon, Taroda (BK.),
              Nanded, District Nanded                            .. Petitioner

                      versus




                                       
     1]       The Divisional Commissioner,
              Aurangabad     
     2]       The District Collector,
              Nanded
                            
     3]       The Superintendent of Police,
              Nanded                                             .. Respondents

                                 -------
      


              Mr. Amit A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for petitioner
              Mr. B. A. Shinde, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondents
   



                                   CORAM :       SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

th

DATE : 20 July, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel

for parties finally by consent.

2. Petitioner, aggrieved by order dated 05-09-2014 passed by

appellate authority - Divisional Commissioner (respondent no.1) in

proceedings bearing No.2003/SAPRA-1/Pol-1/CR-39, which purports

2 WP-7486.16.doc

to confirm the order passed by the Collector and District Magistrate,

Nanded (Respondent no.2) on 13-10-2013 in Arms Licence case

bearing No. 2012/RB-1/Desk-2/T-5/CR-81 refusing to accede to the

request being made by petitioner herein for arms licence for self

protection applied for by him.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner points out that despite the

report of the Superintendent of Police, Nanded, dated 06-09-2013,

neither the Collector nor the Divisional Commissioner, the

authorities, before whom said document had been placed on

record, have not considered the same at all. He submits, however,

the Collector had made reference to subsequent first information

report which would indicate that the petitioner is indeed in dire

need of arms for self protection. As such, according to learned

counsel, both the orders tend to be away from the record placed

before both the authorities.

4. Aforesaid apart, learned counsel for petitioner refers to the

order passed by the Divisional Commissioner-respondent no. 1 and

states that the same would depict that it suffers infirmity having

not applied mind to the facts and the record made available before

him. He submits that beyond mere reference to that the reasons

given in the application seeking arms licence do not appear to be

proper or for that matter the order passed by the Collector appears

to be proper, there is no reference to any specific reason or any

3 WP-7486.16.doc

particular part of order of Collector, to which there is independent

application of mind and/or even the facts and record.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader purports to support

the orders impugned, submitting that the appeal had been delayed

27 days and thereafter the matter had been fixed for orders and

accordingly it has been decided, finding no substance in the

request being made by petitioner for arms licence.

6. Upon hearing the parties and perusal of order dated

05-09-2014 passed by respondent no.1-Divisional Commissioner it

appears that the order contains only the recording of some events

of the proceedings before the authority and stating that the

grounds which have been taken for delay condonation in appeal do

not appear to be reasoned ones and the order passed by the

Collector appears to be proper. It does not give any indication as to

why the reasons and grounds taken in the application seeking

condonation of delay in filing appeal, as well as in the appeal, are

considered to be not reasonable and as to why the order of the

Collector is deemed to be proper.

7. On the whole, the situation emerges that the order passed by

the appellate authority, to a considerable extent, is a non speaking

order failing to substantiate the same with independent application

of mind to the facts and contentions of the parties and the record.

                                             4                   WP-7486.16.doc


     8.       In view of aforesaid,      impugned order dated 05-09-2014




                                                                            

stands set aside. The proceedings filed by present petitioner before

appellate authority-Divisional Commissioner stand restored to

original position as had been subsisting immediately before

05-09-2014. The appellate authority to decide the proceedings

expeditiously.

9. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms. Writ petition stands

accordingly disposed of.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE

pnd