IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5617 OF 2008. Vinod Dnyandeo Gondkar. .... PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. .... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri Ruturaj Patil, Advocate for Petitioner. Smt. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondents. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2009. PER COURT: This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 2nd February, 2007 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Appeal No.14 of 2006 thereby confirming the order passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Ahmednagar on 5.7.2006 on the application dated 29.8.2005, refusing to issue fire arms license to the petitioner. 2 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Magistrate, Ahmednagar as well as the appellate Authority have not properly appreciated the contentions of the petitioner and erroneously came to the different conclusion and rejected the application of the petitioner seeking arms license. In fact, there is danger to the life and property of the petitioner and to that effect, concerned authority has given report in favour of the petitioner and, therefore rejection of the petitioner’s application by the District Magistrate is not correct. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the grounds of the petition and submitted that the petitioner has to travel a lot, his land is situated few Kms away from Shirdi and he is required to travel frequently in connection with his business. He invited my attention to the ground no.8 and submitted that there is threat to the life and property of the petitioner and to that extent, documents were submitted before the authorities. However, by recording contrary finding to the documents, the District Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner. The learned Counsel also invited my attention to the grounds taken in the application and submitted that when there is imminent threat to the life and property of the petitioner, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below are required to be interfered. Hence, this writ petition. 3 The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the alternative, prays that in case it is not possible to allow the said prayers in the petition, then this petition may be allowed in terms of prayer clause (D). 4 After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for the State, I am of the considered view that the District Magistrate as well as the appellate Authority, after appreciation of the documents and contentions of the petitioner, have come to the correct conclusion and the application of the petitioner has been rightly rejected. In paragraph 3 of the order, the appellate Authority has recorded that it appears from the order dated 06.06.2006 issued by the District Magistrate Ahmednagar that, on the basis of reports submitted by the Tahsildar Rahata, Police Inspector of Shirdi, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kopargaon, Superintendent of Police Ahmednagar and the documents, that there is no threat to the life and property of the appellant – petitioner herein. It is further observed that the appellant / petitioner has not mentioned any substantial reasons and the reasons submitted by him are not sufficient and reasonable to accept the prayer. Both the authorities below have taken a reasonable and possible view on the strength of the documents and evidence produced on behalf of the petitioner as well as reports received from subordinate authorities. 5 No case is made out to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has, in the alternative, prayed for liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application and after fresh verification, to consider the same, it is not possible to grant such prayer. This Court can only exercise jurisdiction to see correctness of the judgment and orders impugned in the petition. 6 Hence, the petition is rejected. However, if the authorities finds in future that the request of the petitioner can be considered, dismissal of this petition may not come in the the way of the petitioner or the authorities concerned, as the case may be. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] ... PLK/*