Bombay High Court
Nilesh S/O Dnyaneshwar Tayade vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 7 October, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 25.WP.988-2020 JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 988 OF 2020
Nilesh S/o Dnyaneshwar Tayade
Age 29 years, Occ. Private,
R/o. Nalanda Nagar, Mukkam Post
Kapustalani, Tahsil Anjangaon-Surji,
District Amravati. PETITIONER
...Versus...
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Home Affairs Mantralaya
Mumbai-32.
2. The District Collector,
Amravati, District Amravati.
3. The Divisional Commissioner
Amravati, District Amravati.
4. The Superintendent of Police
Amravati Division, Amravati. RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------
Shri R.D. Hajare, Advocate (Appointed) for the Petitioner.
Shri S.A. Ashirgade, Addl. G.P. for the Respondents.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 07th OCTOBER, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
2 25.WP.988-2020 JUDGMENT.odt
Heard.
2. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.
3. The order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Amravati /respondent No. 3, thereby
confirming the order dated 08.02.2019, passed by the District
Collector, Amravati/respondent No.2, refusing to grant arms
license to the petitioner are under challenge.
4. Mr. Hajare, learned counsel for the petitioner
contends, that there have been attempts on the life of the
petitioner, due to which, four First Information Reports have
been lodged at different times, as a result of which, the
apprehension that there is a threat to the life of the petitioner, is
justified, and therefore, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 ought not
to have rejected the application. He further submits, that the
petitioner is an RTI activist, which is also one of the reasons, the
petitioner is facing threats. Reliance is also placed upon Jitesh
Bhaiyalal Sahu Vs Hon'ble Home Minister (Urban), State of
Maharashtra and Others in Writ Petition No. 8142/2019,
3 25.WP.988-2020 JUDGMENT.odt
decided on 21.02.2020, in support of the contention.
5. Mr. Ashirgade, learned Addl.G.P. for the respondents
submits, that in none of the First Information Reports, any
person has been named. They are all against unknown persons.
The perception of threat according to him is clearly
misconceived and merely because the petitioner is an RTI
activist, that alone cannot be a reason or ground to harbour any
apprehension of any threat to his life.
6. For the grant of arms license, the perception of
threat, is required to be justified to the satisfaction to the Police
Authority. The order dated 08.02.2019, refers to the Police
report, which states, that there is no such reason for any
apprehension as regards the petitioner, as expressed by him for
the grant of license. On the contrary, the order dated
13.08.2019, records the finding, that the First Information
Reports, have been intentionally lodged by the petitioner
against unknown persons in order to create a situation of a
threat perception to the petitioner, thereby asserting the need
for requirement of a license. In my considered opinion, there is
4 25.WP.988-2020 JUDGMENT.odt
no infirmity with the impugned order passed, as the basic
requirement of a favourable Police report is missing and nothing
is alleged vis-a-vis the adverse Police report. Reliance placed
upon Jitesh Bhaiyalal Sahu (Supra) is clearly not justified as the
judgment is rendered in the fact situation as availing in that
petition, which is apparent from a reading of para 10 thereof.
7. In the above circumstances, I do not see any reason
to interfere with orders passed, the petition is therefore
rejected.
8. The appropriate fees be remitted to Mr. R.D. Hajare,
learned counsel for the petitioner, since the matter was allotted
him from the Legal Aid.
9. Rule is discharged.
( AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
