Shyamkumar S/O. Rajaram Dhurvey vs The Divisional Commissioner, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7042 Bom

                                       1                                      jg.cri.wp 467.17.odt

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

                    Criminal Writ Petition No. 467 of 2017

Shyamkumar S/o Rajaram Dhurvey, 
Aged about 53 years, Occu. Business and 
Cultivator, R/o Vinoba nagar, Tumsar, 
Tah. Tumsar, District Bhandara.                                              .... Petitioner

      //  Versus //

(1) The Divisional Commissioner, 
      Nagpur Division, Nagpur. 

(2) The Collector, Bhandara

(30 The Superintendent of Police, 
      Bhandara.                                                          .... Respondents

Shri K. S. Motwani, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri A. M. Deshpande, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents  
                                                         
                                    CORAM      : SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                 M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 12-9-2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The criminal writ

petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the

learned counsel for the parties.

By this criminal writ petition, the petitioner has challenged

the order of the Collector, Bhandara as also the order of the appellate

authority holding that the petitioner's license to possess revolver could

.....2/-

                                          2                                      jg.cri.wp 467.17.odt

not be renewed. 

According to the petitioner, the Collector as well as the

appellate authority have failed to consider that though seven offences

were registered against the petitioner during the period between 1992 to

2007, the petitioner was acquitted of all the offences. It is stated that

though no offence was pending against the petitioner at the time of

renewal of license and all the offences that were registered against the

petitioner were stale, the Collector and the appellate authority have

refused to renew the license in favour of the petitioner solely by relying

on the report the Superintendent of Police, Bhandara.

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that it is apparent from

the report of the Superintendent of Police that initially, the authority

desired that the license of the petitioner should be renewed but the

word 'not' is incorporated by scratching the words which were mentioned

earlier. It is stated that from the report of the Superintendent of Police,

Bhandara, it could be seen that not a single reason is recorded by the said

authority for rejecting the prayer for the renewal of license. It is

submitted that since the appellate authority and the Collector had passed

the orders solely on the report of the Superintendent of Police and since

the Superintendent of Police has not recorded a single reason for

.....3/-

3 jg.cri.wp 467.17.odt

recording an adverse finding against the petitioner, an opportunity of

hearing ought to have been granted to the petitioner by the Collector

before deciding the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner

relied on the unreported judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of this Court

in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 89/2014 and 91/2014 dated 27-2-2014.

Shri Deshpande, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondents submitted that since as many as seven

offences were registered against the petitioner, the Superintendent of

Police submitted a report that was adverse to the petitioner, though the

petitioner was acquitted in all the proceedings that were pending against

him. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, an appropriate

order may be passed.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that

though as many as seven proceedings were initiated against the

petitioner by registering the First Information Report against him, almost

all the matters were stale, in which the FIR was registered sometime

between 1992 to 2007. The petitioner is acquitted in all the proceedings

long back and this fact is noted by the Superintendent of Police,

Bhandara in his report. It appears from the report that initially, the

Superintendent of Police desired that the arms license of the petitioners

.....4/-

4 jg.cri.wp 467.17.odt

should be renewed but by scratching some words in the report, another

words were substituted. We do not find any reason in the report of the

Superintendent of Police, Bhandara for proposing that the license of the

petitioner should not be renewed. In the peculiar circumstances of the

case, it was necessary for the Collector to have afforded an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner before refusing to renew the arms license of the

petitioner.

Hence, in the circumstances of the case and for the reasons

aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders of the

Collector and the appellate authority are quashed and set aside. The

Collector, Bhandara is directed to re-decide the application of the

petitioner for renewal of license after granting an opportunity of hearing

to the petitioner, within two months. The petitioner undertakes to

appear before the Collector, Bhandara on 25-9-2017 so that the service of

notice to the petitioner could be dispensed with.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

                   JUDGE                                             JUDGE

wasnik


                                                                                           ...../-