Tayyab Ismail Pathan v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
2025:BHC-AUG:34981
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 948 WRIT PETITION NO. 3587 OF 2023 TAYYAB ISMAIL PATHAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS Mr. T. M. Shaikh, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. R. B. Dhanure, AGP for the Respondent/State CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 11th DECEMBER, 2025 P. C. :- 1.
Heard Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel for the respective parties.
2.
By way of present Writ Petition, Petitioner is challenging the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad under Section 18 of the Arms Act, whereby the Petitioner's appeal came to be rejected.
3.
The Petitioner had filed an Application before the District Collector for getting an arms license. Pursuant to the said application, the report was submitted by the District
Superintendent of Police, which was based upon the inquiry conducted by the concerned Police Station. The District Superintendent of Police opined that there is no necessity to issue arms license and therefore, the District Collector refused to grant license.
4.
In the appeal, the Divisional Commissioner considered the report and relying upon the said report, refused to entertain the appeal.
5.
I have gone through the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner and also report by the District Superintendent of Police. The District Superintendent of Police has submitted a report of the inquiry conducted by the concerned Police Station, where the petitioner is residing stating that merely because the petitioner is helping the forest officials that cannot be a ground to grant arms license and therefore.
6.
I am of the view that the learned Collector as well as Appellate Authority have rightly considered the matter and I do not find any perversity in the order. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Aurangabad under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7.
In view of this, Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) ssp