Arif Iqbal S/O Iqbal Ahmed vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2339 Bom

       wp2653.16.odt                                                                        1/3    




                                                                             
                  
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                     
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 2653 OF 2016




                                                    
              Arif Iqbal s/o Iqbal Ahmed
              aged about 36 yrs., Occp. Business,
              r/o Halim House, Residency road, Sadar,
              Nagpur-440001.                  ::              ....  PETITIONER




                                         
                              ig       //  VERSUS //

          1. The State of Maharashtra,
             through the Secretary, 
                            
             Home Department, Mantralaya, 
             Mumbai-400032.

          2. The Minister of State for Home,
             Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
      


        3. The Commissioner of Police,
   



           Civil Lines, 
           Nagpur-440001. ::                              .... RESPONDENTS
     ______________________________________________________________





                   Shri M. V. Samarth, Advocate for Petitioner.  
                   Ms T. H. Udeshi, A. G. P. for the respondents.
     ______________________________________________________________

                                  CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 05 MAY, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Notice. Learned A.G.P. waives service for the respondents.

2. Heard. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent.

wp2653.16.odt 2/3

3. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the most

valuable consideration, which ought to have been taken into account,

has not been taken and, therefore, the result is of arbitrariness

manifestly reflected by the impugned order.

4. It is seen from the documents placed on record that the

petitioner is a genuine sportsman having keen interest in shooting as a

sport. It is further seen that the petitioner has also acquired skill in

Target Shooting and that he is desirous of going further for Trap and

Skeet Shooting for which purpose a shot gun is required, without

which no practice can be done. There is also placed on record a

certificate dated 04/01/2013 issued by The Nagpur District Rifle

Association. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner invites my

attention to the notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated

06/3/2013 (page-45). This notification, he submits, was brought to

the notice of the Hon'ble Minister. By this notification, it is seen, a

sports person is permitted to acquire four fire arms for the purpose of

undertaking shooting practice.

5. All these documents, apart from showing the genuineness

of the claim of the petitioner, I must say, are very relevant for the

purpose of consideration of the application filed by the petitioner.

However, they have not been considered. Therefore, the impugned

wp2653.16.odt 3/3

orders cannot stand the scrutiny of law.

The writ petition is allowed.

The impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

The matter is sent back to the learned Commissioner

of Police, Nagpur for considering the application of the

petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made

herein above.

Respondent No.3 is requested to consider the

petitioner's application in accordance with law as early as

possible, preferably within three months from the date of

the order.

JUDGE

wwl