Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2532 (BOM)

Nitin v. Divisional Commissioner

2013-12-09

ABHAY M.THIPSAY

body2013
Judgment: 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. Inspite of specific directions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not made available the record of the proceedings with respect to the action of revocation of the arm license issued in favour of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the petition is being decided after going through the same, the annexures thereto, and after hearing Mr. B.R. Sable, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. P.N. Muley, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was granted a license under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959, to possess and hold a firearm. By an order dated 4-2-2013, the licensing authority revoked the said license. The petitioner challenged the order of revocation by filing an appeal, as contemplated under Section 18 of the Arms Act, but the appellate authority - the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dismissed the appeal holding the action of revocation to be proper. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the license came to be revoked without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. He submitted that a composite order revoking licenses issued in favour of a number of persons was passed by the licensing authority on 4-2-2013, and the only reason given in the said order for revocation of the license issued to the petitioner is that, a case of rioting and offences punishable under Section 323 of the IPC, Section 504 of the IPC, and Section 506 of the IPC, registered on 17-3-2011 was pending against the petitioner. 5. The case against the petitioner, pendency of which is said to be the sole ground for revocation of the license, has been pending since 17-3-2011. However, the action of revocation of the license was taken only on 4th February 2013 i.e. after about two years from the registration of the said case against the petitioner. Secondly, since the order of revocation of license affects the rights of the petitioner adversely, the licensing authority ought to have given a notice to the petitioner and should have called for his say before taking the action of revocation. 6. The appellate authority also has not considered this aspect of the matter, namely, that the petitioner was not heard before the license issued in his favour came to be cancelled by the licensing authority. 7. 6. The appellate authority also has not considered this aspect of the matter, namely, that the petitioner was not heard before the license issued in his favour came to be cancelled by the licensing authority. 7. The order revoking the license granted to the petitioner is not in accordance with law. It appears to have passed solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner, though such case has been pending since for a period of about two years before the decision to revoke the license was taken. 8. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause "C". Rule is made absolute accordingly. It is made clear that, this order shall not be construed as preventing the licensing authority for initiating a fresh action for revocation of the license granted to the petitioner, in accordance with law.