Bombay High Court
Kishor Ashok Parkhe vs The Divisional Commissioner And ... on 8 January, 2021
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP / 6189 / 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6189 OF 2020
Kishor S/o Ashok Parkhe,
Age : 52 years, Occu : Business,
R/o : Bungalow No. 11, Petty Staff Lines,
Near Forte, Camp, Ahmednagar .. Petitioner
Versus
1] The Divisional Commissioner,
Office of the Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Region, Nashik
2] The District Magistrate / Collector,
Office of the Collector, Ahmednagar
3] Bhingar Camp Police Station,
Through its Inspector, Ahmednagar .. Respondents
...
Mr. A.D. Khot, Advocate for petitoner
Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, AGP for respondent - State
...
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 08-01-2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned
counsel for appearing parties finally, by consent.
2. The petitioner had been granted arms licence for sports
target shooting practice in August - 2015. Pursuant to the rules
then prevailing, petitioner was required to purchase weapon viz.
Rule 52(2) of Arms Rules, 1962. Since the weapon to be used for
2 WP / 6189 / 2020
aforesaid sports target shooting practice had not been available,
same could not be purchased by petitioner during the period allowed
and even subsequent extended periods till 2017. However,
subsequently, he could lay hands on weapon and has purportedly
transacted to purchase the same. In the interregnum, eventually,
petitioner's licence had been extended upto 31-12-2021 under an
order dated 17-01-2019.
3. Pursuant to the transaction, it appears, there had been
certain correspondence with the authorities by persons concerned
and to the same, it is being referred to that, authorities have not
applied mind to.
4. Petitioner, however, has received a letter dated
26-09-2019 making reference to Arms Rules, 2016 and it had been
communicated that pursuant to the same, the lincece to him is
being cancelled. Petitioner has preferred an appeal against said
order and he has received decision dated 26-03-2020 stating that
his appeal has been dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner Mr. Abhay Khot
vehemently submits that all the proceedings hitherto, cancelling
petitioner's licence have been in stark breach of noble principles of
natural justice. He refers to section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959,
which obligates notice before taking action of cancellation of licence.
3 WP / 6189 / 2020
He submits that there is only one way communication to petitioner
that his licence has been cancelled and his appeal has been
dismissed and his case has not been heard at all.
6. Mr. Yawalkar, learned AGP purports to resist the
aforesaid submissions, stating that petitioner is aware of the rules
previous as well as present and in the circumstances, no fault can
be found with the orders passed.
7. Perusal of orders passed do show that petitioner had not
been given any notice before taking action of cancellation of licence
nor his case has been heard. It appears that uni-sided, the matter
had been decided referring to the rules. The appellate order is even
more terse. It does not give any reason whatsoever for dismissal of
the appeal.
8. In the circumstances, orders dated 26-03-2020 passed
by respondent no. 1 - Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division,
Nashik and dated 26-09-2019 passed by respondent no. 2 - District
Magistrate / Collector, Ahmednagar are untenable being in breach of
principles of natural justice and for non-following the procedure as
referred to under the provisions concerned in the Arms Act, 1959.
4 WP / 6189 / 2020
9. In view of aforesaid, it would be expedient that the
proper procedure be followed by giving opportunity to petitioner
before taking any action.
10. Impugned orders dated 26-03-2020 passed by
respondent no. 1 - Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik
and dated 26-09-2019 passed by respondent no. 2 - District
Magistrate / Collector, Ahmednagar are quashed and set aside
without undermining powers of authorities to proceed with in
accordance with law.
11. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
12. Writ petition is disposed of.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH]
JUDGE
arp/
