Bombay High Court
Rajendra @ Raju Jeevanlal Bamb vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 29 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:26799
*1* crwp1075o24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1075 OF 2024
Rajendra @ Raju Jeevanlal Bamb,
Age : 51 years, Occ : LIC Agent,
R/at Lane No.7, Old Dhule,
Subhash Nagar, Dhule-424001.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
Having office at Government Colony,
Nashik-422101.
3. The District Magistrate, Dhule.
Having office at Garud Baug,
Navnath Nagar, Dhule-424001.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
(Home), Dhule.
Having office at Navnath Nagar,
Dhule 424001.
5. The Police Office in-charge of
The Azadnagar Police Station,
Dhule.
Having office at Lane No.7,
Navnath Nagar, Dhule-424001.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Shri Abhishek R. Avachat, Advocate for the petitioner through
V.C.
Shri D.B. Bhange, APP for the respondents/ State.
...
*2* crwp1075o24
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
Reserved on : 24 September 2025
Pronounced on : 29 September 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by
consent of parties, heard finally.
3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 04.04.2024
passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division,
Nashik, in Arms Licence Appeal No.17/2023 thereby, affirming
the order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the District Magistrate,
Dhule, revoking the petitioner's Arms Licence No.10/2017.
4. According to the petitioner, he was granted Arms
Licence No.10/2017 on 25.04.2017 and since then he has been in
possession of firearm i.e. pistol. The said arms licence was
regularly renewed from April 2017 to 31.12.2022. However, in
2022, six criminal cases came to be registered against the
*3* crwp1075o24
petitioner with different police stations. Therefore, vide letter
dated 18.03.2023 respondent No.5 Police Inspector through
respondent No.4 Deputy Superintendent of Police, forwarded the
proposal to respondent No.3 District Magistrate requesting for
revoking the petitioner's arms licence. The said proceedings were
contested by the petitioner by filing his say dated 20.06.2023.
However, respondent No.3, vide impugned order dated
29.08.2023, revoked the arms licence. Being aggrieved by said
order, the petitioner filed Arms Licence Appeal No.17/2023
before respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner, which came to
be dismissed vide impugned order dated 04.04.2024. Hence, this
petition.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that
respondent No.3 District Magistrate has virtually failed to give
any valid reason for revoking his licence. A glance at the said
order would reveal that same is cryptic and unreasoned one.
According to him, there was no material before both the
authorities below to arrive at any conclusion for revoking licence
and therefore, they ought not to have passed the impugned
orders. There was absolutely no material put forth by the Police
*4* crwp1075o24
Authorities before the adjudicating authorities below to arrive at
subjective satisfaction or strong conclusion that the petitioner's
arms licence needs to be revoked. Learned advocate vehemently
submitted that the sole ground for revocation of licence is that
there are multiple cases registered against the petitioner and he
may pressurize witnesses of said cases. However, mere
registration of criminal cases without there being sufficient other
material to show that there is direct threat to public at large or
there is breach of public peace or harm to public safety, is no
ground to revoke arms licence.
6. In support of his above submissions, learned
advocate for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decisions
rendered by this Court in Ajay Jayawant Bhosale vs.
Commissioner of Police, Pune City and others, reported in
(2016) 3 AIR Bom R (Cri) 90 : (2016) 4 Bom CR (Cri) 153 and
Shri Paresh Diliprao Kolhe vs. The State of Maharashtra and
another, Criminal Writ Petition No.0117/2018 (Aurangabad
Bench) decided vide order dated 05.02.2019. He submitted that
in these judgments, this Court was pleased to observe that
Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, authorizes the Licensing
*5* crwp1075o24
Authority to cancel or revoke the licence if he deems it necessary
for security of public peace or for public safety. Section 17(3)(b)
indicates that in case the licencing authority is subjectively
satisfied that in a given case, if continuation of licence endangers
public peace or public safety then he is empowered to cancel or
revoke the licence. According to learned advocate for the
petitioner, in the case in hand, offences which are registered
against the petitioner in 2022, are mostly registered for offences
punishable under the provisions of the Money Lending Act and
ancillary provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, said
offences are not pertaining to disturbance to public peace or
public safety and as such, no occasion has arisen to revoke the
arms licence. He, therefore, prayed for quashing the impugned
orders.
7. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the
petition. He submitted that the impugned orders are proper,
correct and within parameters of law. The authorities below have
given sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before
passing impugned orders. Since the authorities did not commit
any mistake or error while adjudicating the proceedings and
*6* crwp1075o24
passing impugned orders, no interference is called for in
impugned orders. He, accordingly, supported impugned orders
and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. After hearing learned advocates, I have gone
through impugned orders and records available. It is well settled
position of law that the authorities, while passing an order for
revocation of arms licence under Section 17(1)(b) of the Arms
Act, 1959, ought to have arrived at subjective satisfaction. In this
regard, learned advocate for the petitioner has rightly placed
reliance on the judgment in Ajay Jayawant Bhosale (supra),
wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has observed
in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 as under:-
"12. The question, therefore, arises as to whether there
was sufficient material placed before the
Commissioner of Police for arriving at subjective
satisfaction that continuation of licence or renewal
would be endangering public peace or public
safety. It seems that the show-cause notice was
issued by the Commissioner, Pune consequent to
filing of application by the petitioner to the Home
Department of the State Government for getting all
India arms licence. Nevertheless at any stage the
licensing authority after getting subjectively
satisfied and on the basis of material placed before
it could revoke licence under Section 17 of the Act
but whether there was sufficient material with the
licensing authority to pass order of revocation.
13. The right to life and liberty are guaranteed under
*7* crwp1075o24
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Arms
licence is granted for personal safety and security
after due enquiry by the authorities in accordance
with provisions contained in the Arms Act, 1959.
The provisions of Arms Act with regard to
suspension or cancellation of Arms licence cannot
be invoked lightly in an arbitrary manner. The
provisions of the Arms Act particularly Section
11/14 WP594.13.sxw 13 to 17 indicate that once a
licence is granted under the Act, the same shall be
renewed from time to time unless there exist a
ground of refusal as enumerated under Section 14
of the Act. Protection to life, property of citizen is
responsibility of the State. It is only when person
apprehends that machinery of State would not
come to his help for protection, he/she applies for
licence under the Act. 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."
9. As is observed in Ram Murti Madhukar vs. District
Magistrate, Sitapur, reported in 1999 CriLJ 3712 : 1999 All LJ
1518, it is also well settled that mere pendency of criminal cases
and apprehension of abuse of arms licence, are not sufficient
grounds for revoking the licence under Section 17(3)(b) of the
*8* crwp1075o24
Arms Act, 1959.
10. In the light of above factors, I am of the view that
the authorities below have failed in revoking the petitioner's
arms licence. As such, the petition succeeds. The Writ Petition is
allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside.
11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
kps (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)
