1

crwp 620.22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

921 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.620 OF 2022

DR. SHITAL PRAKASH RAGHUWANSHI

VERSUS

THE COLLECTOR JALGAON, COMPETANT AUTHORITY

UNDER ARMS ACT AND OTHERS

...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Waramaa B. R.

APP for Respondent: Mr. P G Borade

...

CORAM : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.

Dated: August 02, 2022

...

PER COURT :-

1.

Mr. Borade, learned APP for the State seeks leave

to place on record the affdavit-in-reply on behalf of

respondent nos.1 and 2.

2.

Leave granted.

3.

Affdavit-in-reply is taken on record. Copy is

provided to Mr. Warmaa, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

4.

The petitioner is challenging the order passed by

the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in

in Arm License Appeal No.5 of 2008 thereby confrming

aaa/-

2

crwp 620.22.odt

the decision dated 17.2.2018 rejecting prayer for grant of

Arm License rendered by the District Collector, Jalgaon.

5.

Heard Mr. Warmaa, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Borade, learned APP for the

respondent State.

6.

According to Mr. Warmaa, learned counsel for the

petitioner, both the impugned orders are without

application of mind. He submitted that though

concerned police offcials have recommended to issue

Arm License to the petitioner, the Superintendent of

Police, Jalgaon misread the same and in the concluding

paragraph of the report, gave negative report. According

to him, it is clear case of non-application of mind. The

report was accepted by the District Collector, Jalgaon

and rejected the application for Arms License. He

submitted that, the appellate authority has also

confrmed the order passed by the District Magistrate

without taking into consideration the positive report

submitted by the concerned police offcials. He

submitted that both the orders are liable to be quashed

aaa/-

3

crwp 620.22.odt

and set aside. He has also referred the decision in case

of Ashok Dayaram Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra

and others in Criminal Writ Petition no.984 of 2016

dated 12.1.208. He submitted that in identical facts,

this Court was pleased to quash and set aside the

orders passed by competent authorities and directed to

issue Arms licence.

7.

Mr. Borade, learned APP for the State strongly

opposed to allow this petition. He also invited my

attention to the affdavit-in-reply, more particularly,

paragraph nos.4 to 7, and submitted that, both the

authorities have applied their mind. There was no

eminent threat or danger to the life of the petitioner and

as such rightly rejected the application for issuance of

arms license. He submitted that there is no legal defect

as such in both the orders passed by the competent

authority.

8.

Having considered the submissions of both sides, I

have gone through the impugned orders passed by the

District

Magistrate,

Jalgaon

and

Divisional

aaa/-

4

crwp 620.22.odt

Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. On perusing

the impugned orders, it is very much clear that the

learned District Magistrate, Jalgaon and Divisional

Commissioner, Nashik as well pleased to reject the

application on the report of District Superintend of

Police. There was no independent application of mind

as contemplated under the Arms Rules, 2016. Rule 12

specifcally provides that :-

“12. Obligations of licensing authority in certain cases.

(1) Save as otherwise provided in the Act, every

licensing authority granting a licence in Form III to

an individual for the restricted or permissible arms

or ammunition as specifed in category I(b) and I(c)

or category III respec