Bombay High Court
Ramesh Shriram Yadnyekar Joshi vs The Divisional Commissioner And Others on 4 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:28527
1 932.WP-13308-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 13308 OF 2024
RAMESH SHRIRAM YADNYEKAR JOSHI
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Amardeep F. Naiknaware h/f
Mr. Nimbalkar Aniruddha A
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. A.V. Lavte
...
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
DATE : 4th OCTOBER 2025
PER COURT :
1. The Petitioner was allotted the gun license vide license no.
JLN-674-2013. The Superintendent of Police, Jalna had submitted a
report dated 21.03.2022 to the Collector, for cancellation of the
license of the Petitioner. Accordingly the Collector, Jalna vide its
order dated 26.04.2022 was pleased to cancel the gun license of the
Petitioner.
2. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the said rejection, was
had filed an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner on
the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as the
Petitioner was not heard before passing of the order dated
26.04.2022. The learned Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated
11.10.2022, was pleased to set aside the order of the Collector and
directed that the Petitioner be granted an opportunity of hearing, and
2 932.WP-13308-2024.doc
thereafter a fresh order be passed. After granting opportunity of
hearing to the Petitioner, the Collector vide order dated 15.02.2023
thus suspended the license. The said order dated 15.02.2023 passed
by the Collector afresh, was challenged before the Divisional
Commissioner alongwith application for condonation of delay. The
learned Divisional Commissioner vide its order dated 05.03.2024 was
pleased to reject the application for condonation of delay and thus
dismissed the appeal.
3. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.03.2024
passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, rejecting the
application for condonation of delay as well as appeal under Section
18 of the Arms Act. The Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Naiknaware
holding for Mr. Nimbalkar submits that sufficient reasons were given
in the application for condonation of delay, however the learned
Divisional Commissioner has failed to take into consideration the said
reasons given which has caused the delay of filing an appeal. It is his
submission that the delay is not inordinate and deliberate. Thus the
same ought to have been condoned in the interest of justice.
4. It is his further submission that the learned Divisional
Commissioner has though dismissed the appeal on the ground of
delay, has unnecessarily touched upon the merits of the matter and
also dismissed the appeal on merits. It is therefore his submission
that the valuable right of the Petitioner is defeated by the non-
consideration of the aforesaid facts by the learned Appellate Court.
3 932.WP-13308-2024.doc
5. On the other hand, the learned APP Mr. Lavte strongly
opposes the Writ Petition. On behalf of all the Respondents, he has
also filed a reply affidavit, thereby supporting the order passed by the
learned Divisional Commissioner which upheld the order of Collector,
revoking license issued earlier in the name of Petitioner. He
vehemently submits that apart from the Petitioner not being eligible
for holding of an arm license, the Petitioner was involved in various
criminal offences registered against him over the period, which
demonstrate his criminal tendency and indicate that he poses a threat
to the maintenance of public order, peace, and tranquility.
. Learned APP further submits that even after the order
passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 05.03.2024,
the Petitioner had again indulged into several offences which are
mentioned in the chart submitted in the affidavit dated 02.09.2025
filed on behalf of the Assistant Police Inspector Maujpuri Police
Station, Jalna. He further submits that the Petitioner has engaged
himself into the illegal sand excavation and there is every likelihood
that if the arms license is renewed, the same may be used for
continuation of such illegal activities by the Petitioner which would
aid to establish his supremacy, resulting in disturbance of public
order.
6. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the
learned Divisional Commissioner and the grounds raised by the
Petitioner in his appeal filed before the learned Divisional
Commissioner alongwith the condonation of delay application and
4 932.WP-13308-2024.doc
also the affidavit filed by the Respondents herein.
7. The argument of the learned Counsel Mr. Amardeep
Naiknaware for the Petitioner is that the learned Divisional
Commissioner has in fact did not deal with the application for
condonation of application, neither referred to the grounds
mentioned in the application for delay and has ventured into the
merits of the appeal. According to the Counsel for the Petitioner, the
learned trial Court could not have done so particularly in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 3 SCC
525 in the matter of Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara Vs.
Labour Court, Bhilwara and Another. It is further submitted by the
learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the criminal antecedents of
the petitioner have been wrongly discussed by the learned Divisional
Commissioner, which reflects that he was influenced by the same
while deciding the application for condonation of delay.
8. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned
Divisional Commissioner had only considered the submissions of the
learned Counsel for the Petitioner, application for condonation of
delay and the submissions of the Respondents herein. The criminal
antecedents reflected in the impugned order, were only the part of
the submissions made by the Respondents herein and does not
show that the same was considered by the learned
Divisional Commissioner while passing the operative part. The
learned Divisional Commissioner has found that the Petitioner has
5 932.WP-13308-2024.doc
failed to provide any sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 288
days. The learned Divisional Commissioner has further found that as
the Petitioner has failed to explain the delay by substantiating the
same through documentary evidence, the condonation of delay
application of the Petitioner is dismissed.
9. The perusal of the order passed by the learned Divisional
Commissioner would show that the learned Divisional Commissioner
had dismissed the appeal on delay as the same was not found within
limitation. The contention of the Petitioner that the learned
Divisional Commissioner has even discussed the matter on merits, is
wholly misconceived as the Counsel for the Petitioner has
misunderstood the recording of the contentions of the Respondents
to be findings of the learned Divisional Commissioner. The findings
are restricted only to the insufficient reasons for condoning the delay
and the dismissal of the same on the ground of inability to explain
the delay caused in filing the appeal under Section 18 of the Arms
Act.
10. It is seen from the record that even now the Petitioner has
failed to give sufficient reasons to substantiate the reasons for which
there was a delay caused in filing the appeal. Neither before the
learned Divisional Commissioner, nor before this Court the Petitioner
has provided any documentary evidence to prove his inability to file
an appeal within limitation, before the learned Divisional
Commissioner. In my view therefore there is no error in the
6 932.WP-13308-2024.doc
impugned order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner. The
learned Divisional Commissioner has taken into consideration all
aspects of the matter and after application of mind, has passed the
impugned order. The impugned order is therefore just, proper and is
hereby maintained. The petition is devoid of substance on merits and
is hereby dismissed.
MEHROZ K. PATHAN
JUDGE
NAJEEB..
