1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6154 OF 2009 Gundappa s/o Veerbhadrappa Kalyani, Aged 43 years, Occu.Business and Agriculture, R/o Ganesh Nagar, Ausa, Taluka Ausa, District Latur .. Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 3. The Collector/District Magistrate, Latur .. Respondents Shri R.N.Dhorde, Advocate holding for Shri P.S.Dighe, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.B.Ghatge, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 15th September 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. 3. The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to decide the application of the petitioner for issuance of an Arms Licence and releasing the weapon of the petitioner in the light of the order dated 10.5.2007 passed by the second respondent. In the light of the relief which is sought for in this petition, we consider it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. 4. We need not advert to the facts of the present case as it would suffice to state that by virtue of orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad dated 10.5.2007, in Appeal No.2007/GB/Desk-1POL-5/CR-7, the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad directed the District Magistrate, Latur to give an opportunity to 3 the petitioner herein to adduce evidence in support of his claim, appreciate the documentary evidence on record and to pass orders within two months from the date of the said order. It appears that the appellate authority had allowed the appeal and had remitted the matter back to the District Magistrate, Latur for grant of Arms Licence to the petitioner herein who was the appellant before the appellate authority. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite passage of time and despite the fact that the appellate authority had directed the District Magistrate, Latur to decide the said application within two months, the respondents are not deciding the application which is pending, filed by the petitioner for renewal of the Arms Licence and for return of the revolver which has been seized by the respondents. 5. In the light of the fact that the said application is pending before the respondents since more than one and half years, we direct the respondents to decide the said application, in accordance with law and in accordance with the directions issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in its order dated 10.5.2007 in Appeal No. 2007/GB/Desk-1POL-5/CR-7, within three months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 4 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. 7. Learned Asstt.Govt.Pleader to communicate this order to respondents. 8. Copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar be provided to the learned Counsel for the parties to act upon. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/6154.09wp 5