Bombay High Court

Kedarnath Waman Sanap vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 November, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:30884

                                                     1                   Cr. W.P. 197 / 2023


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 197 OF 2023

              Kedarnath S/o Waman Sanap,
              Age : 46 years, Occu. Business,
              R/o Hudco Colony, House No. 49,
              Jamner Road, Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal,
              Dist. Jalgaon                                                 .. Petitioner

                     Versus

              1] The State of Maharashtra
                 Through The Divisional Commissioner,
                 Nashik Division, Nashik

              2] The District Collector,
                 Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon

              3] The Superintendent of Police,
                 Jalgaon, Tq. ^ Dist. Jalgaon                                .. Respondents


                                                      ...
                                    Advocate for petitioner : Mr. P.P. More
                              APP for the respondent - State : Mr. K.B. Jadhavar
                                                       ...

                              CORAM              : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

                              DATE               : 11 NOVEMBER 2025


              PER COURT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of

learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. The petitioner raises an exception to the order dated

05.05.2022 rendered by the District Collector, Jalgaon under the

provisions of section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of

1959), thereby cancelling the licence of the petitioner for use of the

arms.

3. Request of the petitioner was acceded to by the authority

in the year 2008 for grant of arms licence. Thereafter, there was no

complaint in relation to the misuse by the petitioner. Thereafter, in the

year 2020, till the petitioner was working as a Labour Contractor for the

agency, namely, B.C. Biyani Project Pvt. Ltd., Bhusawal. After the

petitioner discontinued the services with the said company, a complaint

was presented at the instance of said B.C. Biyani Project Pvt. Ltd. with

an assertion that there was every likelihood of petitioner misusing the

said weapon, as such, a complaint was made to cancel the licence.

4. Pursuant to the said complaint, a report was called in that

regard. Taking into account that no cognizable or non-cognizable

offence was ever registered against the present petitioner, as such, it

was informed that there was no reason to revoke the licence.

Resultantly, the complaint was disposed of by the Naib Tahsildar

(Home), Collector Office, Jalgaon. Thereafter, crime no. 1245 of 2020

was registered on 18.12.2020 against the present petitioner in relation

to the incident dated 13.12.2020, under section 143, 147, 148, 149,

160 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 30 of the Arms Act,

1959, wherein the only assertion is of taking out the revolver from

pocket and holding it in the hand by the petitioner. In the aforesaid

backdrop, the District Collector issued show cause to the petitioner.

5. While offering an explanation the petitioner submitted that

the complainant is politically influential person and a false report to that

effect is prepared on the basis of the incident dated 13.12.2020, in

relation to which FIR was lodged at a belated stage on 18.12.2020.

There is no complaint that the petitioner ever used revolver so as to

threaten anybody, as such, there was no misuse of the arms by the

petitioner. Therefore, prayed not to revoke the licence legally granted

in favour of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the petitioner

has exposed the illegal activities of the complainant, therefore, there is

threat to the life of the petitioner, as such, requested not to cancel the

permission.

6. The District Collector, after hearing the petitioner in person,

passed the order revoking licence which is challenged in the present

petition.

7. Mr. P.P. More, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the order under challenge is passed under dictation. The order

suffers from non-application of mind. It was further submitted that the

order is not in coherence with the provisions of sub-section 3 of section

17 of the Act of 1959, which unequivocally obligates the authority to

record the reasons. In absence of such reasons, the unsustainability of

the order is apparent, therefore, prayed to quash the impugned order

and allow the petition.

8. In support of contentions, placed reliance on the judgment

of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Jayawant

Bhosale Vs. The Commissioner of Police and others (Judgment

dated 15.07.2016 passed in Criminal Writ Petition no. 594 of 2014).

9. Per contra, Mr. Jadhavar, learned A.P.P. has supported the

order, submitting that the FIR is registered against the petitioner on

account of misuse of the arms by taking out the revolver from pocket

and holding it in hand.

10. I have considered the respective submissions and perused

the record. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was granted

licence in the year 2008 for self protection. Since then, there is no

complaint against the petitioner for misuse. However, it appears that

the first complaint dated 18.12.2020 lodged by same complainant and

was considered by the authority for requesting to revoke the licence.

A detail report in that regard was called and taking into account that

there is no offence registered either cognizable or non-cognizable,

therefore, report concluded that it would not be appropriate to revoke

the licence of the petitioner.

11. Preceded by the same, a successive complaint of the

same complainant dated 16.12.2020, reiterating the request of

revoking the licence of the petitioner leading to consequent enquiry

was initiated in the wake of the registration of crime no. 1245 of 2020

dated 18.12.2020 in relation to the incident dated 13.12.2020, wherein

the solitary assertion is made of holding the revolver in the hand.

Barring the aforesaid assertion, there is no other material to indicate

and establish misuse by the petitioner.

12. It would be apt to reproduce paragraphs no. 12 of the

aforesaid judgment in Ajay Bhosale (supra) which lent support to the

contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which

reads as under :-

"12. ....The provisions of Section 17 A of the Arms Act indicate that arms licence can be cancelled or suspended if the licensing authority finds it necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. Merely because a criminal case is pending, the provisions of Section 17 of the Arms Act would not be attracted. Such provisions would be attracted in case the licensing authority finds that continuance of licence is detrimental to public peace or public security and safety. But the authority concerned will have to record a finding that how and under what circumstances and in what manner possession of arms licence could be contrary to the provisions of Section 17 B of the Arms Act. Each case is required to be considered on its own merits.

13. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel for the

petitioner is justified in placing reliance on the judgment of Division

Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Jayawant Bhosale (supra)

where this Court has held that the revocation of licence must be based

on recording of reasons of circumstances and manner of possession

could be contrary to the statutory provision.

14. The statutory provision unequivocally authorizes the

licensing authority to cancel or revoke the licence on the ground of

security of public peace or public safety. These provisions obligates

the authority to record its subjective satisfaction in relation to the threat

to public peace or public safety. After recording the reasons, the

authority may cancel or revoke the licence. Only on account of

registration of the offence, the authority shall record the reason that

due to the same, there could be danger to public peace. Resultantly,

the order under challenge has been passed in ignorance of the same

cancelling the licence of the petitioner.

15. Admittedly, the issuance of licence and / or revocation is

regulated by the statutory provisions, it unequivocally obligates the

authorities to comply with the statutory requirements in the manner as

has been laid down in the statute. If something is required to be done

in a particular manner, essentially and predominantly, the same has to

be done in that manner. Undoubtedly, sub-section 3 of section 17 of

the Act of 1959, mandates recording of reasons, in absence of the

reasons, the unsustainability of the order is apparent.

16. Admittedly, the authority has not recorded any finding as to

the manner in which continuance of licence is contrary to section 17 of

the Act, without such satisfaction, order does not sustain and only has

referred to submissions put forth by the litigating sides and rendered

the conclusion in a mechanical manner.

17. When confronted with the absence of reasons by the

authority while revoking the licence of the petitioner, the learned A.P.P.

has fairly conceded that there are no reasons have been recorded by

the authority. Nonetheless, apparently, the complainant who has made

successive attempts for ensuring revocation of licence, the authority

has passed the order under dictation and acted on irrelevant

consideration de hors the statutory provision.

18. The reasons are the soul of the judicial or administrative

order. When the reasons ceases, so does the law itself and, therefore,

the unsustainability of the order under challenge is apparent.

Resultantly, the same will have to be regarded as unsustainable in law.

19. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.05.2022 passed

by respondent no. 2 - District Collector, Jalgaon and order dated

16.11.2022 passed by respondent no. 1 in Arms License Appeal No. 10

of 2022, are hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent no. 1 is

directed to restore the licence and issue same to the petitioner within a

period of 30 days from the receipt of this order.