1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3029 OF 2010 Jiyaji S/o Baburao Gaikwad, Age 35 years, Occ.Agriculture, and Social Work, R/o Gaikwad Galli, Dharur, Tal. Dharur, Dist. Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Beed, District Beed. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.S.Thombre, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 12.04.2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V.Hardas,J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the District Collector and the District Magistrate, Beed to grant arms license in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad on 3.7.2007. The petitioner also prays vide prayer clause (C) for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to decide the proceedings for grant of arms license pursuant to the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. Since the application of the petitioner is pending consideration with Respondent No.2, according to us at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief at prayer clause (B) 3 of directing the Respondent No.2 to grant arms license in favour of the petitioner. 3. Such of the facts as are necessary for decision of the petition may briefly be stated thus : The petitioner claims to be councillor of Municipal Council, Dharur. On account of security reasons and as the petitioner was apprehending danger to his life, the petitioner submitted an application for issuance of arms license in his favour. It appears that the arms license came to be granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 12.2.2007 on the basis of a complaint, the arms license granted to the petitioner came to be cancelled by Respondent No. 2 by order dated 12.2.2007. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal U/s 18 of the Arms Act, before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. After hearing the parties, Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, allowed the appeal by his order dated 3.7.2007 and remitted the matter 4 back to the District Magistrate, Beed for deciding the application afresh after making inquiry and giving reasonable opportunity to the present petitioner to defend his case. 4. According to the petitioner though the order was passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad on 3.7.2007, the proceedings pending for cancellation of the arms license has not been decided so far by the Respondent No.2. In the light of the said facts, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. 5. The learned Government Pleader who accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 states that if the said proceedings are pending before Respondent No.2 i.e. the District Collector and District Magistrate, Beed, the same would be decided by Respondent No.2 within a period of two (2) months from today. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. 5 6. We accordingly allow this petition and direct the Respondent No.2 to decide the pending proceedings, if pending, pursuant to the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, dated 3.7.2007, in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) asp/office/wp302910