Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 877
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.S. Shinde, J.
Shafique Ahmed Mohammed Rafique – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 4498 of 2017
Decided On : 23-07-2019
Aisha M.Z. Ansari, Adv., Nasreen Ayubi, Adv., A.R. Patil, Adv.
Headnote:
Criminal Laws – Arm License – Petition is filed with substantive prayer that this Honble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the District Magistrate Nashik and order passed by Divisional Commissioner, rejecting the Arm License to the Petitioner – Held, Contents of the said report are contrary to the reports of the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Malegaon City Sub Division, Malegaon – After making detailed inquiry, the Sub Divisional Officer found the case of the Petitioner fit for issuance of new arm license and, accordingly, by report made recommendation in favour of the Petitioner to issue arm license for his personal security. – However, the authorities below did not take into consideration the said report and, passed the orders on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Nashik Rural which is a cryptic report, and contrary to the report of the local police. – Relying upon this report both the authorities below have rejected the application of the Petitioner – Prima facie it appears that both the authorities have passed the impugned order without taking into consideration the reasons mentioned by the Petitioner in the application and the recommendations issued by the local police. – Though there are recommendations in favour of the Petitioner given by the local police, the Superintendent of Police, Nashik Rural did not recommend the case of the Petitioner for issuance of arm license. – It would be opposite to remit the matter back to the District Magistrate, Nashik for a de-novo consideration, and the interest of justice would be served if, the Petitioner is directed to file a fresh application before the District Magistrate for issuance of arm license. – In that view of the matter the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside, and the matter is relegated back to the District Magistrate, Nashik for a de-novo consideration. – Writ Petition Disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
S.S. Shinde, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This petition is filed with following substantive prayer :-
"(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the District Magistrate Nashik dated 03.11.2016 (Annexure "F") and order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Nashik dated 10.01.2017 (Annexure "G") rejecting the Arm License to the Petitioner;"
3. Background facts for filing the writ petition are as under :-
It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner is a businessman and his main occupation is selling and purchasing of old car. Apart from the said business Petitioner is a Social Worker and at present the Duty Chief of Maharashtra State Bharastachar Nirmulan Abhiyan. He has filed complaints in the police stations against the ration shop keeper, who used to do black marketing, and because of his complaint many ration shop keeper's licenses have been cancelled. Petitioner has also lodged complaint against the country liquor shop owners who used to breach conditions on which such permission to run the country liquor shop has been granted in their favour. They used to open their shops for sale of liquor beyond prescribe time limit.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that, Petitioner has also lodged complaint against the power loom factory owner, who used to take help of child labour. He also made complaints against the person who used plastic and waste material instead of wood for heating boiler. Petitioner has lodged many complaints against above said people, and therefore they have grudge against him.
5. It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner is a farmer having his field out side of Malegaon City. He is dealing in sale and purchase of land, and for this he has to carry huge amount of cash. Petitioner is required arms for his self protection, and Petitioner has on 19.08.2015 made an application to the District Magistrate Nashik for granting him permission to possess pistol on 22.10.2015 the Sub-Divisional Police Officer City Sub-Division Malegaon, has sent Police Report in favour of the Applicant to the District Collector and similarly on 28.06.2016, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer City Sub-Division Malegaon sent favourable Police Report to the Superintendent of Police, Nashik Road.
6. It is the case of the Petitioner that, he has been awarded certificates of Honour by various authorities on 03.11.2016 the District Magistrate rejected the application of the Petitioner on the ground that the said District Magistrate received report from the Superintendent of Police Nashik (Rural) on 20.09.2016, in which said Superintendent of Police Nashik Road has not given recommendation for issuance of license of the fire arm in favour of the Petitioner.
7. It is the case of the Petitioner that the applicant's wife is corporator and therefore he fears for his life due to political rivalry, and he also have business of agricultural land so also he is fighting against corruption and enemies have been created due to said reasons. The Superintendent of Police Nashik (Rural) has stated in his police report that, there is no threat to life of the applicant therefore, he may not be granted license for fire arms. Relying upon report received from the Superintendent of Police, Nashik (Rural) District Magistrate rejected application of the Petitioner.
8. Being aggrieved by order passed by the District Magistrate Nashik, the Petitioner filled an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner of Nashik Region, Nashik. On 10.01.2017 the said Divisional Commissioner Nashik Region, Nashik rejected appeal of the Petitioner. Hence, this Petition.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, both the authorities below have not considered the material placed before them including the Police Report, and came to wrong conclusion that the petitioner has not made out case for is
