Bombay High Court
Abhishek Jagdish Ghuge vs Divisional Commissioner, ... on 7 January, 2021
Bench: Swapna Joshi
WP.577.20
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 577/2020
Abhishek Jagdish Ghuge
Aged 37 years, occu: Business & Agriculturist
R/o Civil Lines, Washim
Tq. & Dist. Washim ..PETITIONER
versus
1) The Divisional Commissioner
Amravati Division, Amravati
Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
2) The District Magistrate
Washim, Tq. & Dist Washim
3) District Superintendent of Police
Tq. & Dist. Washim.
4) Police Inspector
P.S. Washim City, Washim,
Tq. & Dist. Washim.
5) Police Inspector,
P. S.Washim (Rural)
Washim, Tq & Dist. Washim. ..RESPONDENTS
..........................................................................................................
Mr. V.R. Deshpande, Adv. For petitioner
Ms. Shamsi Haider, APP for respondents
..........................................................................................................
CORAM: MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, J.
DATED: 7th January, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT:
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 00:48:14 :::
WP.577.20
2
1. Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of
respective parties, the matter is heard finally, at the stage of admission
itself.
2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of
revocation of his arms license by the District Magistrate, Washim i.e.
Licensing Authority. The petitioner was issued a revolver license by the
Licensing Authority some time in the year 2015. On 1st May 2019, a
requisition was sent by respondent no.3-Superintendent of Police to
respondent no.2-District Magistrate for revocation of said license of the
petitioner. On 2nd December 2019, on receipt of the said requisition,
the respondent no.2 without issuing show-cause notice to the petitioner,
revoked the license on the ground that criminal offences are pending
against him. The allegations were that he had threatened his wife by
using the said weapon and therefore she committed suicide. Offences
punishable u/ss. 498A and 306 r/ws. 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide
Cr. No. 47/2019 were registered. So also, there are allegations that the
petitioner threatened to kill his paramour with whom he is having an
illicit relation and as such, offences punishable u/s 376 r/ws.506 IPC
were registered vide Cri. No.53/2019. On the basis of the material, the
respondent no.2 was of the opinion that the license of the petitioner
should be cancelled as there was danger to the public peace and
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 00:48:14 :::
WP.577.20
3
tranquility.
3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent no.2
an appeal was preferred at the instance of petitioner before the
respondent no.1-Divisional Commissioner, Amravati challenging the said
order, which came to be dismissed. The said order dated 11.3.2020
passed by the respondent no.1 is impugned in the present petition.
4. Mr.Ved Deshpande, learned Advocate for the petitioner
vehemently argued and it is well-settled that pendency of offences
cannot be a ground to reject the license of the petitioner, more
particularly when he has not been issued a show-cause notice by the
respondent no.2. He further submitted that only because criminal cases
are pending against him, there cannot be likelihood that the public peace
would be endangered. He contended that the principles of natural
justice are not followed in the present matter as the petitioner was not
given an opportunity to put up his case.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner placed heavy reliance
on the judgment of Nitin Naiknaware vs. Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad and others, reported in 2014 All MR(Cri) 1634 wherein, in
similar circumstances, this Court has held that since the order of
revocation of license affects the rights of the petitioner adversely, the
licensing authority ought to have given notice to the petitioner and
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 00:48:14 :::
WP.577.20
4
should have called for his say before taking the action of revocation. It
was also observed that it was imperative to hear the petitioner prior to
cancellation of his licence and,therefore, revocation of the license is not
in accordance with law.
6. In the instant case also, the petitioner was neither served
with a show-cause notice by the respondent no.2 nor given any
opportunity to be heard.
7. Learned Advocate for petitioner further relied upon the
judgment reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri.) 2202 in the case of Rajkumar
Shriramwar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. In that case, the
petitioner was not supplied the copy of the report called from the
Superintendent of Police by the District Magistrate. It was held that the
District Magistrate had considered the material outside the show-cause
notice and therefore the action of revocation on the part of the District
Magistrate was illegal.
8. In the instant case also, the respondent no.2 although had
called for the report from Superintendent of Police in respect of the
petitioner, however, the copy was not supplied him. Thus, the petitioner
was not aware the basis on which the District Magistrate has taken the
action.
9. The learned APP opposed the contentions raised on behalf
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 00:48:14 :::
WP.577.20
5
of the petitioner, however, she fairly submitted that the notice was not
served upon the petitioner. She contended that the District Magistrate
has powers to revoke the license on receipt of police report.
10. In any case, show-cause notice was not issued to the
petitioner and consequently the principles of natural justice were not
followed. So also, the petitioner was not aware about the contents of the
report furnished by the Superintendent of Police.
11. In the background of the above-referred facts and the law, in
my view, it would be just and proper to set aside the orders passed by
respondent nos. 1 and 2 with directions to issue fresh notice to the
petitioner. Hence the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The impugned orders dated 11th March 2020 passed
by Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and 2nd December,
2019 passed by District Magistrate revoking the arms
license of the petitioner are hereby set aside.
(ii) The District Magistrate, Washim /Respondent No.2 is
directed to issue a fresh notice in respect of revocation of
arms license of the petitioner if so required and after
affording him an opportunity of being heard, pass an
appropriate order in accordance with law.
WP.577.20
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE
sahare
