1

WP-6616.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

WRIT PETITION NO. 6616 OF 2014

Dipak s/o Jagannath Jadhav,

Age 42 years, occup. Agriculture

and social work, r/o Chatra Borgaon,

Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed

.. Petitioner

versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra, through

the Secretary, Department of Home,

Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,

Mumbai – 32

2.

The Divisional Commissioner,

Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad

3.

The District Collector / District

Magistrate, Beed, Dist. Beed

4.

The Superintendent of Police,

Beed, Dist. Beed

5.

The Police Station, Majalgaon,

Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed

.. Respondents

-----

Mr. Bhagwan R. Sable,

Advocate for petitioner

Mr. S. K. Tambe, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondents

CORAM :

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

14TH OCTOBER, 2015

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned

counsel for parties finally, by consent.

2

WP-6616.14

2.

Petitioner, who is an agriculturist and a political worker,

had been granted licence on 10-03-2005 under the Arms Act for

acquisition and possession of arm for self defence and protection

from wild animals and decoity.

3.

It appears that a criminal case had been registered against

the petitioner in pursuance of crime No. 65 of 2005 dated

12-03-2005 for offences punishable under sections 143, 341

read with section 31 of Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the

Bombay Police Act. It further appears that pursuant to grant of

licence, petitioner had not, by then, in possession of any arms.

It is not the case that while in respect of alleged incident crime

was registered against him, he had either been in possession

or had used said arm, for, there was no occasion for him to use

the same.

4.

It further appears that the petitioner has been acquitted of

the offences alleged against him, under a judgment and order

passed by the 2^nd Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Majalgaon

delivered on 28-12-2011 in regular criminal case no. 900 of

2005 originating from aforesaid crime No. 65 of 2005.

5.

It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to acquittal,

respondent no. 5 did not update record, on the contrary, on

3

WP-6616.14

21-01-2013, disregarding said acquittal, wrongly recommended

to respondent no. 3-District Magistrate to cancel Arms licence

granted in favour of the petitioner.

6.

It appears to be case of the petitioner that based on

incorrect report of respondent no.5, respondent no. 3 on

04-02-2013 revoked Arms licence of the petitioner and that

despite his representation dated 11-02-2013 requesting to

reconsider revocation of licence, the same was not taken into

consideration

7.

Petitioner, as such, appears to have filed appeal before

respondent no.2-Divisional Commissioner, challenging order

dated 04-02-2013. Said appeal was allowed partly under order

dated 15-06-2013 and the matter was remanded to respondent

no. 3 for consideration afresh.

8.

However, upon remand, respondent no. 3 - District

Magistrate under order dated 18-10-2013 rejected the request

of the petitioner for setting aside order dated 04-02-2013, of

revocation of licence. It appears that while deciding the matter,

the District Magistrate has considered that although the

petitioner has been acquitted of the offences with which he was

charged, the same is for want of availability of witnesses.

Against this order of District Magistrate, petitioner appears to

4

WP-6616.14

have filed appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, however,

he too by order 17-04-2014 appears to have gone by the

reasons recorded by the District Magistrate and thus rejected the

appeal. As such, petitioner is before this court.

9.

Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to an order dated

24-08-2015 in writ petition no.671 of 2013 wherein the court

had allowed the writ petition setting aside impugned order

cancelling l