Gajanan Bachu Patil v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

911 wp 3412-14.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3412 OF 2014 Gajanan Bachu Patil ..Petitioner v/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

..Respondents Mr.B.R.Patil i/b. M.M.Kadam for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.H.Mhatre, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,JJ.

DATED : JULY 01, 2015.

P.C.

1.

Heard. By the order impugned in the present petition, the application of the petitioner for armed license came to be rejected. The application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not given sufficient reasons for possessing the arm and there is no threat perception to the petitioner. Ee do not find any error in the order.

2.

Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to support pps

911 wp 3412-14.doc his contention relied upon the provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. The said provision deals with refusal of license. Section 13 of the Arms Act deals with the grant of Arms License. Under clause (b) of sub Clause (3) of the said Section 13 before granting license, the Licensing Authority is required to be satisfied that the person by whom the license is required has a good reason for obtaining the same. In the present case the petitioner has not given any reason for possessing the Arms License. Section 14 therefore has no relevance in the present case. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Ganesh Bhat v. District Magistrate Almora & Ors., reported in AIR 1993 Allahabad 291. We are not agreeable with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in the said case. The petition is without any merit and hence dismissed. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.) pps