Hiraman Sasar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 1884 Bom

                                                    1                         3.wp-6626.15.doc

sbw 
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               WRIT PETITION NO.6626 OF 2015

       Hiraman Sasar                                                 ... Petitioner  
             vs.
       The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                               ...Respondents


       Mr. A. A.Siddiqui i/b. A. A. Siddiqui & Asso. for the  petitioner.
       Ms. Aparna D. Vhatkar, AGP,  for the respondent nos.1 to 3.

                                              CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
                                                        A. K. MENON, JJ.

DATE : 20th APRIL, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.S. OKA, J.)

1. Rule. The learned AGP waives service for the respondents.

We have taken up the petition for a final disposal.

2. The petitioner made an application on 26th May, 2009 to the

respondent no.2 for grant of a licence to possess a revolver. The

licence was sought under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959

(for short "the said Act"). In the application filed by the

petitioner, he claimed that he requires the weapon for self

defence/self protection. On the basis of the said application, the

Additional District Magistrate, Pune called for the reports of the

various authorities. The Conservator of Forest, Pune, vide his

letter dated 13th July, 2009 recorded his no objection for grant of

2 3.wp-6626.15.doc

licence by stating that the place of residence of the petitioner is

not within the territory of 10 km. from any sanctuary. He has

stated that there is no forest offence registered against the

petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dehu Road,

submitted a report recording his no objection for grant of a

Revolver licence to the petitioner. The Office Superintendent in

the office of the Superintendent of Police, Pune (Rural), on behalf

of the Superintendent of Police, issued a communication dated

28th July, 2010 to the District Collector. In the said

communication, it is recorded that the Inspector of Police of

Paud Police Station has given his no objection. Similarly, the Sub-

Divisional Police Officer, Dehu Road, has also given his no

objection for grant of a licence to use a revolver. However, it was

mentioned in the said letter dated 28 th July, 2010 that a licence to

use a gun be granted to the petitioner.

3. The District Magistrate which is the licensing authority by his

order dated 19th October, 2010 rejected the application of the

petitioner. The first ground set out in the order is that though the

application made by the petitioner for grant of a licence to use a

revolver, the Superintendent of Police, Pune (Rural) has

recommended for grant of a licence to use a gun/riffle. As

3 3.wp-6626.15.doc

recommendation of the Superintendent of Police is not in terms

of the application for grant of licence, the District Collector

observed that the application made by the petitioner cannot be

granted.

4. The second ground in the said order is that the petitioner has

not pointed out that any serious offence such as theft, robbery

had taken place in the vicinity of his residence and that he has

not shown that there is any threat to his life. Therefore, the

District Magistrate recorded a conclusion that for self-protection,

the petitioner does not require Arms licence.

5. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the said

order to the Divisional Commissioner. By the order dated 9 th

April, 2015, the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the appeal.

6. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned AGP, we have perused both the orders and the

other material on record. The application made by the petitioner

records that he needs Arms licence for his self-protection. In his

statement recorded by the Circle Officer, the petitioner stated that

his agricultural land is at the distance of 1 km. from his house

4 3.wp-6626.15.doc

which is in a forest area. He stated that crimes are being

committed in the adjoining area and, therefore, he needs

Revolver for his self-protection.

7. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dehu Road, agreed with the

recommendation of the Inspector of Police of Paud Police Station

that Arms licence deserves to be granted to the petitioner. On the

basis of the recommendation of the two officers, the office of the

Superintendent of Pune (Rural) recommended grant of licence.

However, in the recommendation, it was mentioned that a licence

should be granted for the use of a gun. The main ground on

which the District Magistrate rejected the application is that the

recommendation of the Police is not in terms of the application

made by the petitioner for grant of licence to use a revolver.

Secondly, the District Magistrate had observed that an actual

threat perception to the petitioner is not shown.

8. The District Magistrate ignored that all the three police

authorities had come to the conclusion that an Arms licence

deserves to be granted to the petitioner. Only in the

recommendation submitted on behalf of the District

Superintendent of Police, it was stated that the licence to use a

5 3.wp-6626.15.doc

gun be granted to the petitioner.

9. We may note here that in cases which came before us, we

have noticed that the State Government has granted Arms

licences in several cases when the licence was sought only on the

ground of self-protection though there was no concrete material

placed on record to show actual threat perception.

10. As far as the order in appeal is concerned, we find that the

Appellate Authority has not adverted to the recommendations

made by the Inspector of Police, the Sub-Divisional of Police and

the District Superintendent of Police. He again came to the

conclusion that there is no evidence to show that there is a threat

to the life of the petitioner.

11. In our view, it was necessary for the Appellate Authority to

have considered the reports of the police and thereafter to decide

the appeal on merits. Moreover, the Appellate Authority ought to

have called for a report for showing in how many cases the State

has granted a licence on this ground of self protection though

actual threat is not shown.

6 3.wp-6626.15.doc

12. Therefore, this is a fit case where by setting aside the

impugned orders, the Licensing Authority will have to be directed

to reconsider the application made by the petitioner. The

Licensing Authority can always seek a clarification from the

District Superintendent of Police Pune (Rural) as to why he has

recommended the grant of a gun licence to the petitioner instead

of a revolver licence.

13. Accordingly, we pass the following order:-

(i) The impugned orders dated 19 th October, 2010 and 9th April,

2015 are hereby set aside and the application made by the

petitioner for grant of Arms licence on 27 th May, 2009 under the

said Act is remanded for fresh consideration to the District

Magistrate, Pune;

(ii) It will be open for the District Magistrate to seek a fresh

reports from the Police/other Authorities. It will also be open to

the District Magistrate to seek a clarification from the District

Superintendent of Police as to why a recommendation for issuing

a licence to use a gun was made by him;

(iii) After considering the reports, the District Magistrate shall

pass a fresh order on an application made by the petitioner in the

light of the observations made in this judgment and order;

(iv) An appropriate order shall be passed by the District

7 3.wp-6626.15.doc

Magistrate within a period of three months from the date on

which an authenticated copy of this order is produced in his

office;

(v) Rule is made absolute partly on the above terms.

(vi) All concerned to act upon an authenticated cop of this order.

          (A. K. MENON, J.)                                    (A. S. OKA, J.)