Bombay High Court
Abdul Gaffar Abdul Sattar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 13 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:21902
(1) wp-12899-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12899 OF 2021
Abdul Gaffar s/o Abdul Sattar,
Age- 40 years, Occ-Agri/Business,
R/o. Bilalnagar, Chauphala Road,
Nanded Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Its Principal Secretary,
State Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division,
Aurangabad.
3. The District Magistrate,
Nanded District
Nanded.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
S.P. Office, Nanded. ..Respondents
...
Mr. S. R. Bagal hf/ Mr. B. N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. K. S. Patil, AGP for Respondents.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Reserved On : 08th AUGUST, 2025.
Pronounce On : 13th AUGUST, 2025.
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the
parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.
2. The petitioner impugns order dated 03.07.2019 passed by
Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Appeal No.2016/Gen.
(2) wp-12899-2021.odt
Adm./Pole-1/Arms/CR-37, thereby confirming order dated
10.05.2015 passed by Learned District Magistrate, Nanded
refusing to grant arms licence in favour of petitioner.
3. Mr. Bagal, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner submits
that petitioner is a businessman engaged in business of Saw Mill
and frequently visits forest area for purchasing wood. He usually
carries cash for spot payments and traveling from naxalite area
like Kinwat. He holds agriculture land and requires to visit farm
in night time. The incidents of attack, theft and robbery are
common in his area of operation. The petitioner is elected as
President of Youth Congress Committee, Nanded and his father
was Mayor of Municipal Corporation Nanded. He received threats
from unknown persons and apprehension to his life and property.
In this background, petitioner applied for issuance of arms licence.
4. The respondent no.3, who is Competent Authority called
police report and ultimately rejected petitioner's application giving
reasons that two criminal cases were registered against petitioner
and no record is placed to show that there is apprehension to his
life and property. The petitioner filed Appeal before Divisional
Commissioner, Aurangabad under Section 18 of Arms Act, 1959.
However, same is rejected by recording similar reasons depicted in
order passed by District Magistrate, Nanded.
(3) wp-12899-2021.odt
5. Mr. Bagal would submit that reasons as stated in impugned
order are not sustainable in view of provision of Section 14 of Arms
Act and its interpretation adopted by this Court in various judicial
pronouncements. In support of his contentions he relies upon order
of this Court in case of Pawan Ashok Bora Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors. (Writ Petition No.9914/2016 dated
02.02.2017) and Sardar Gurtejpal Singh s/o Gurnaib Singh
Sidhu Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Writ Petition
No.3786/2015 dated 29.01.2016).
6. The learned AGP, however, supports impugned order relying
upon contents of affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent
no.3. He submits that directions issued by Joint Secretary to
Government of India vide communication dated 06.04.2010,
Licensing Authority is required to call report of Police Authority
under Section 13(2) before granting arms licence and on the basis
of such report it was observed that crimes were registered against
petitioner. He is aggressive in nature and likely to create threat to
public security and peace.
7. Having considered submissions advanced, it can be observed
that Section 14 of Arms Act delineates the situations where the
licence is to be mandatorily refused, which read thus:
(4) wp-12899-2021.odt
"1. Where licence under Section 3 or 4 or 5 is required in
respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition;
2. Where the licensing authority is satisfied that the
person requiring licence is prohibited by Arms Act or by any
other law from acquiring or possessing or carrying any arms
or ammunition;
3. Where the person requiring licence is of unsound
mind;
4.Where the person desirous of having a licence is unfit for
holding the licence under the Arms Act;
5. Where the licensing authority considers it necessary for
the secrity of the public peace or public safety to refuse the
licence."
8. It is, therefore, evident that generally licence can be refused
when person requiring licence is prohibited by Arms Act or under
any law for acquiring or possessing or carrying any arms or he is
unfit for holding such licence or he is of unsound mind or refusal is
necessary to maintain security of public peace or public safety. The
absence of threat or apprehension to person and property of person
requiring licence is not condition precedent for grant of licence.
This Court in case of Pawan Ashok Bora (supra) observed in
paragraph no.9 as under:
"9. This view is consistent with the legislative intent
discernible from section 14(2) of the Act. This provision of
law creates an embargo upon the power of the authority to
refuse grant of licence by laying down that it shall not
refuse licence merely on the ground that such person does
not possess sufficient property. The Legislature intends that
possession of property would have no bearing on exercise of
the power to refuse grant of licence. It would also then mean
that absence of threat to the property is no criteria for
refusal of the licence. So, if absence of threat to the property
(5) wp-12899-2021.odt
is not a criteria for refusal of licence, it can also be found
inferentially that absence of threat to the person of the
applicant would be no criteria for refusal of the licence.
This is what has been held consistently by the learned
Judges, as the Honourable Judges then were, in the cases
relied upon by the petitioner."
9. The absence of threat to property is not criteria for refusal of
licence. Further this Court gave reference to observations of
Allahabad High Court in case of Ganesh Chandra Bhatt Vs.
District Magistrate, Almora1, wherein this Court observed that
whenever any application for licence under Arms Act is made,
same must be processed and decided within three months and
normal rule must be grant of licence in case of non-prohibited arms
and refusal should be an exception and for strong reasons to be
recorded in writing, after giving opportunity of hearing to applicant
and such reasons of rejection must be communicated to applicant.
Similarly, in case of Sardar Gurtejpal Singh s/o Gurnaib
Singh Sidhu (supra) this Court observed that refusal of licence in
absence of grounds contemplated under Section 14 of Arms Act
cannot be countenanced.
10. In present case, looking to the impugned order it can be
observed that earlier two criminal cases were registered against
petitioner. However, fact remains that both criminal cases ended
in acquittal and none of them was for serious offence. Similarly,
second ground incorporated in order that there is no evidence to
1 AIR 1993 ALL 291.
(6) wp-12899-2021.odt
indicate threat of life and property to petitioner cannot be reason
for rejection of licence.
11. In light of aforesaid exposition of law, this Court deems it
appropriate to relegate matter for reconsideration to respondent
no.3 by setting aside impugned order. In result, following order is
passed:
ORDER
a. Writ Petition is partly allowed.
b. The impugned order dated 03.07.2019 passed by Divisional
Commissioner, Aurangabad in Appeal No.2016/Gen.
Adm./Pole-1/Arms/CR-37, is hereby quashed and set aside.
c. The matter is relegated to respondent no.3 to consider
application of petitioner for grant of arms licence in light of
observations made in this order. Such an exercise to be completed
within period of four months from today.
d. The petitioner to appear before respondent no.3 on
02.09.2025.
e. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/August-2025
