Preetpalsingh Teerathsingh Major v. The Union Of India And Others

1 wp 2016.20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2016 OF 2020 Preetpalsingh Teerathsingh Major .. Petitioner

Versus

The Union of India and others .. Respondents Shri Mrigesh D. Narwadkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri D. G. Nagode, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 Mrs. V. S. Choudhari, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM :

S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATE :

02ND MARCH, 2021.

FINAL ORDER :

.

Mr. Narwadkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is professional riffle shooter sports and enrolled with the National Riffle Association. The petitioner is renowned riffle shooter. The petitioner is permitted to import the weapons for the purpose of practice and competition. The learned counsel submits that, as per the Government notification dated 04th August, 2014, the petitioner being renowned shooter is entitled to possess seven weapons i. e. four in exempted category plus three weapons which he can possess as a normal citizen. The respondent No. 3 has sanctioned license for one weapon only. The said decision is in violation of sports policy and notification dated 04.08.2014. The learned advocate submits that, now the notification has been amended and a new notification dated

2 wp 2016.20 12.02.2020 has been issued. The Government notification dated 04th August, 2014 is superseded. The respondents be directed to issue arms license to purchase/import four non prohibited bore riffles.

2.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that, considering the provisions for the junior target shooter, the order passed by the Collector is appropriate.

3.

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties.

4.

The Collector before passing order had sought for the report of the Superintendent of Police Nanded. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Nanded suggests that, the petitioner has participated at National Riffle shooting event and was awarded the gold medal. The petitioner also relies on the certificate issued by the Association to contend that the petitioner is a renowned shooter.

5.

The authority while allowing the application of the petitioner partly and restricting the arms license to only one weapon has failed to give reasons for not allowing the application of the petitioner in toto.

6.

Reasons now are supposed to be third limb of principles of natural justice.

3 wp 2016.20 7.

As the impugned order is bereft of any reasons, more particularly while negativing claim of the petitioner for four arms license, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8.

In the light of the above, we pass following order. 9.

The Collector, Nanded shall reconsider the application of the petitioner for grant of arms license to purchase/import four non prohibited bore riffles for the purpose of practice and participation in the shooting events as per the applicable notification and the decision shall be taken on its own merits, expeditiously and preferably within a period of two (02) months from today. While passing fresh order, the order impugned in this writ petition would not be an impediment. 10.

In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] bsb/March 21