*1* wp.2862.11.921.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2862 OF 2011 Rameshwar Yashwant Patil. ..Petitioner -Versus- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents .......... Mrs.Nisha Valani, for the Petitioner. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 11th July, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard both sides. This Writ Petition is directed against refusal of the arms licence to the Petitioner. The Petitioner states that this Court should exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority. It is submitted that both the District Magistrate as also the Appellate Authority failed to note that under Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, the arms licence sought by the Petitioner could not have been refused. The Petitioner sought the arms licence for self protection. The District Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that the Superintendent of Police, Thane (Rural) did not recommend the arms licence to the Petitioner. 2 Relying upon the contents of the report and that of the application made, so also, wording of Section 14, it is contended by Mrs.Valani, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, that the Appellate Authority as also the District Magistrate should have granted the arms *2* wp.2862.11.921.sxw licence because same is required to procure the arms for self protection. Considering the nature of the business and visits that the Petitioner has to pay to remote areas, so also, carrying valuable articles and cash with him, it is necessary to have the arms licence. The reasons assigned for rejection are not germane and that is why this Court must set aside the order. 3 On the other hand, the learned AGP has invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr.Nitin Haridas Chavan, Tahasildar, Kalyan and annexures thereto and pointed out that the application of the Petitioner was considered in the backdrop of the applicable statutory provisions and guidelines and finding that the Petitioner might misuse the arms procured under such licence, that the permission was refused. The reasons that have been assigned to support the belief are very much relevant inasmuch as same make the Petitioner unfit for licence. There has been incident wherein the Petitioner’s brother-in-law was assaulted and killed and the Petitioner decided to avenge his death. In such circumstances, it would not be safe to grant the arms licence to the Petitioner. The learned AGP, therefore, prays that the petition be dismissed. 4 I have perused the orders under challenge and the affidavit and relevant provisions. The Appellate Authority has referred to the reports of the Executive Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police recommending that the arms licence should not be given to the Petitioner because of the nature of attack on his brother-in-law and the response thereto by the Petitioner. The Petitioner may misuse the licence if granted. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is not for this Court to substitute its view and opinion with that of the authorities who are incharge of maintaining law and order. However, even otherwise, the Petitioner could not satisfy the authorities that he requires the licence for self protection. *3* wp.2862.11.921.sxw There is nothing erroneous in the impugned order once the report is that the Petitioner has good character and antecedents. He is not found to have been indulged in any of the activities nor has placed any document to show that he fears threat to his life and therefore, requires self protection. If the guidelines provide that this is one of the requirement that the Applicant must satisfy, it is not for this Court either to hold that the guidelines are not germane or relevant, or travel beyond the powers conferred or hold that the guidelines themselves violate the provisions of law. Once it is found that the guidelines that are borne in mind while determining and deciding the grant of such licence have been framed by the appropriate authorities and even the Central Government and the State Government stipulating that the essential elements of threat to his life has to be satisfied by the Applicant; I do not see this to be a fit case to grant the licence. The reasons assigned by the authorities to reach the conclusion are within the framework of the statute and the guidelines framed thereof. 5 For all these reasons, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and it is dismissed. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)