Bombay High Court

Ganesh Bhagirath Mundalik vs The Collector, Ahmednagar And Others on 8 September, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:23793




                                                (1)                    crwp1344.23


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1344 OF 2023

           Ganesh s/o. Bhagirath Mundalik                       ..    Petitioner
           Age.-33 years, Occ. Business,
           R/o. Gadhe Galli, Belapur Bk.,
           Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.

                                            VERSUS

           1.    The Collector, Ahmednagar                      ..    Respondents
                 Competent Authority under
                 Arms Act.

           2.    The Divisional Commissioner,
                 Nashik Dn., Nashik.

           3.    The State of Maharashtra,
                 Through Police Inspector,
                 Shrirampur Police Station,
                 Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.

           Mr. B.R. Waramaa, Advocate for the petitioner.
           Ms. A.S. Deshmukh, APP for the respondents-State.

                                    CORAM                  : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
                                    RESERVED ON            : 07.08.2025
                                    PRONOUNCED ON          : 08.09.2025


           J U D G M E N T :

01. Heard. By order dated 21.01.2025 this Court had issued Rule

in this petition. Therefore, same is taken up for final disposal by consent

of the parties.

(2) crwp1344.23

02. This petition is filed challenging a judgment and order dated

01.07.2022 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Nashik

Division, Nashik, in Arm License Appeal No. 35 of 2018, thereby

confirming an order passed by the learned Collector, Ahmednagar. The

learned Collector, Ahmednagar by way of his order dated 06.09.2021

refused to grant arm license to the petitioner.

03. It is a case of the petitioner that he is having agricultural

property. He stays there with his family in the agricultural land. His

father late Bhagirath Rangnath Mundlik was having Arm License and was

possessing "Entered One 32 Bore Revolver No. A2334/08. His father

died on 15.11.2016. He had already executed an affidavit on 21.08.2012

before the Tahsildar, Shrirampur, wherein he has expressed that after his

death, the license be given to the present petitioner. The petitioner is

required to look after the agricultural land. He is also having a gold shop

and a water purification plant. It is for this reason, he applied for license

by filing application dated 25.01.2017. However, the learned Collector

rejected the application, stating that there is no convincing reason for

giving license, no grave and imminent threat is shown and there was

crime registered against the petitioner on the basis of which he faced (3) crwp1344.23

trial. It is also considered that he has been acquitted from the said

offence. However, it is considered that the report from the

Superintendent of Police is negative.

04. The petitioner approached the learned Divisional

Commissioner, challenging order passed by the learned Collector. The

learned Divisional Commissioner, Nashik by way of the impugned order,

rejected the appeal, confirming the order. It is also stated that there is

no grave and imminent threat shown to the life of the petitioner. He

reiterated the reason that there is negative report given by the

Superintendent of Police, while dismissing the appeal.

05. Learned Advocate Mr. Waramaa vehemently argued that

looking to the scheme of sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, it mandates

that the license be issued to a person unless there are circumstances

existing for not granting such license. He submits that in the present

case, both the Authorities have recorded totally perverse finding. Merely,

negative report from the Superintendent of Police cannot be used to

refuse the license. He submits that in other cases some parties have

been granted license liberally just for asking. Though there was offence

pending against the petitioner, he has been acquitted in 2018 itself. That (4) crwp1344.23

ground is no more available to the Authorities. He thus prays for

allowing the petition.

06. Learned APP argued that it is for the Authorities to consider

the case for grant of license on its own merits. Same is properly

considered by the Authorities. There is criminal history against the

present petitioner. The Authorities have discretion in the matter of

granting license. In the present case both the Authorities have properly

exercised the discretion.

07. In the present case, the petitioner while applying for the

license has only stated that his father was possessing a license. The

father of the petitioner had given an affidavit to the Tahsildar stating that

the license be transferred in the name of the petitioner. The father died

in 2016. In the application the only reason stated is that the petitioner

possesses agricultural land and he is having gold shop and water

purification plant. The Superintendent of Police made enquiry and filed a

report. It is concluded in the report that there is no strong reason to

grant license to the petitioner for his self-defense. The learned Collector

has discussed that there is no sufficient and proper reason stated in the

application making out a case for grant of license. It is observed in the (5) crwp1344.23

order that for the gold shop, the petitioner can engage a guard with arm

and accepted the report of the Superintendent of Police. He further

considered section 13(2A)(2) of the Arms Act.

08. The learned Divisional Commissioner has considered Rule 25

of the Arms Rule, 2006, which deals with grant of license to legal heirs.

It provides for giving license to the legal heirs nominated by such person.

It provides that the Authority may grant license to such legal heirs if the

eligibility conditions under the Act and the Rules are fulfilled and there

are no adverse remarks in the police report. The Rule is quoted under :-

"25. Grant of licenses to legal heirs.

(1) The licensing authority may grant a license -

(a) after the death of the licensee, to his legal heir; or

(b) in any other case, on the licensee attaining the age of seventy years or on holding the firearm for twenty five years, whichever is earlier, to any legal heir nominated by him:

Provided that notwithstanding the provisions contained in rule 12 of these rules, the licensing authority may grant a license to such legal heir if the eligibility conditions under the Act and these rules are fulfilled by the said legal heir and there are no adverse remarks in the police report.

(2) Where a licensee leaves behind more than one legal heir and the legal heirs decide amongst themselves to retain the arm or arms of the deceased, one of the legal heirs nominated by all other legal heirs may apply for a license under sub-rule (1) along with the following documents, namely:-

(i) a declaration of no-objection from the remaining legal heirs;

(ii) an indemnity bond executed by the applicant giving full details of the license and the arm or arms endorsed thereupon; and (6) crwp1344.23

(iii) a copy of the death certificate of the deceased licensee.

(3) Where the legal heirs decide to dispose of the arm or arms endorsed on the license of the deceased licensee, they may apply to the licensing authority for grant of a limited period permission to sell the arm or arms, within the time allowed by such authority, to any licensed dealer or to any other person entitled to possess an arm under these rules."

. He has thus considered that the Superintendent of Police has

given adverse report and rejected the appeal.

09. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has stated that in

other cases the licenses are given liberally and merely for asking and it is

only in the case of the petitioner, no license is given.

10. This Court finds that merely in any other cases, licenses are

given liberally is no reason to grant license to the petitioner. The learned

Divisional Commissioner has considered that while giving license to the

legal heirs, there should be no adverse report form the Police. In the

present case, there is adverse report from the police.

11. It is rightly criticized by the learned Advocate for the

petitioner that while passing the order, it is not for the Authorities to

observe as to how care can be taken of the property. Certainly, this (7) crwp1344.23

Court finds that the observation that the petitioner can engage services

of armed guard is not warranted. However, that itself would not make

the order perverse. At the most, said observation can be said to be

redundant.

12. This Court finds that the learned Divisional Commissioner has

rightly considered the Rule 25 and has passed order. Reliance is placed

by the petitioner on the communication by the Joint Secretary to the

Government of India to the Secretaries (Home Department), all States,

UTs dated 06.04.2010. The learned Joint Secretary has given guidelines

for grant of licence/renewal of such licence. This Court finds that from

the said guidelines, this Court does not find that this Court can get any

support. Clause "a" of the communication reads as under :-

"a) Those persons who face grave and imminent threat to their lives by mere reason of being residents of a geographical area (or areas) where terrorists are most active and/or are held to be prime 'targets' in the eyes of terrorists and/or are known to be inimical to the aims and objects of the terrorists and as such face danger to their lives."

13. Reliance of the petitioner on the judgment passed by this

Court dated 12.01.2018 in Cri. Writ Petition No. 984 of 2016 is also not

of much help to the petitioner. In that case, this Court had observed that

though licensing Authorities can refuse license to a person on the ground (8) crwp1344.23

of security, peace or public safety, the Authority shall not refuse to grant

license merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess

sufficient property. In that case, the Authority had given reason that the

petitioner in that case was not having sufficient property.

14. This Court finds that there is nothing to support the case of

the petitioner. No grave or imminent danger is shown to the life of the

petitioner. The Authorities are certainly vested with discretion. Unless it

is shown that the discretion is exercised in perverse manner, this Court