1 Cri. W.P.No.1070 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Writ Petition No.1070 Of 2011 1) Yasmin w/o Ejaj Ahmed Khan Pathan, Age 37 years, Occupation : Service. 2) Junaid Ahmedkhan s/o Mahamood Alamkhan Pathan, Age 32 years, Occupation : Business. 3) Juberkhan Mahamood Alamkhan Pathan, Age 38 years, Occupation : Business, 4) Rafique s/o Mahamood Alamkhan Pathan, Age 35 years, Occupation : Business, All residents of Plot No.41, Ayesha Nagar, Mulla Colony, Chalisgaon Road, Dhule. .. Petitioners. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Department of Home Ministry, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Collector, Dhule. 3) The Superintendent of Police, Dhule. .. Respondents. -------- 2 Cri. W.P.No.1070 of 2010 Shri. M.C. Sayed, Advocate for petitioners. Shri. D.V. Tele, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE: 15th APRIL 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Naresh H Patil, J.) 1) Rule, rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2) The petitioners contend that, they formed a partisanship firm in the year 2009 to start business in respect of arms and ammunitions. Thereafter they submitted an application to the respondent No.2 under section 13 of the Arms Act 1959. The respondent No.3 directed respondent No.3 - Sub Divisional Police Officer, Dhule and the concerned police to conduct enquiry of the petitioners. It is further contended that a report was submitted by the police of Azadnagar Police Station Dhule to the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Dhule. The said report was accordingly forwarded to the respondent No.3 by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Dhule. 3 Cri. W.P.No.1070 of 2010 3) It is contended that respondent No.3 informed respondent No.2 that they have no objection against the petitioners for running the partnership firm. 4) By a communication dated 8-1-2010 the Desk Officer, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra addressed to respondent No.2 raised certain queries. The respondent No.2 by a communication dated 5-2-2010 submitted the relevant documents. It is petitioners' contention that the Desk Officer forwarded the matter with positive remarks on 14-5-2010 to the Principal Secretary (Special) Home Department. The Principal Secretary called for further report. By communication dated 13-8-2010 the Desk Officer informed respondent No.2 that the request made by the petitioners has been rejected. The respondent No.2 by a communication dated 9-9-2010 communicated the decision to the petitioner. The petitioners have impugned both these communications. 5) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the light of Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 the State Government ought to have 4 Cri. W.P.No.1070 of 2010 furnished reasons for rejection of the application of the petitioners. The counsel further submits that, the officers at the district level had no objection to grant licence to the petitioners. But in spite of the same the State Government has rejected the application of the petitioners. 6) Consequent to notice issued by this Court, affidavit-in-reply is filed by the State Government through Shri. A.S. Gharge, Deputy Secretary to the Government Maharashtra, Home Department. In para 8 of the reply it is contended by the deponent thus : "8. With reference to paras 16 and 21, I say that the plot which was to be used for the shop, is in residential area. The Nagar Parishad, Dhule had given permission for construction for residential use and not for commercial use. The Architect of Dhule Municipality had mentioned in his letter that there is no provision for arm and ammunition dealer shop and there is a provision only for police chowky, civil defence office, home guard or similar such offices. According to the Fire Brigade, in case of fire, it is difficult to take action as the width of the road is not adequate. Similarly, there are already 2 dealers of Arms and Ammunition and there are only 539 licence holders in the city of Dhule. Thus there are sufficient number of arm dealers to meet the requirement. There is no requirement of such a large quantity of arms and ammunition. These facts were considered while rejecting the request of the petitioners." 5 Cri. W.P.No.1070 of 2010 7) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that for the reasons stated in the affidavit the State Government had rejected the application of the petitioners. 8) We have considered the submissions advanced and perused the documents placed on record. Considering the reply filed and the submissions advanced, in the facts of the case, we are not inclined to issue directions in terms of prayer clause (C) to grant licence to the petitioners' firm on the basis of form submitted on 4-8-2009 in exercise of our extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 9) Provisions of Section 14(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 read as under : "14. Refusal of licences.-- 1) ....... (2) ....... (3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement." 6 Cri. W.P.No.1070 of 2010 10) Considering the provisions in respect of refusal to grant licence we are of the view that the State Government is entitled to communicate its decision in accordance with Section 14 of the Arms Act 1959. It is clear from the provisions of the Act that the State Government can refuse to disclose reasons if it is not in public interest to do so. But it is for the State Government to take decision and communicate to the respondent No.2 - Collector Dhule accordingly. 11) For the reasons stated above, the impugned communication dated 13th August 2010 issued by the Desk Officer, Home Department, and the letter dated 9-9-2010 issue by the Additional District Magistrate Dhule are quashed and set aside. The State Government is directed to take decision accordingly and communicate the same. 12) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl