1 WP 678 of 2011 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.678 of 2011 Shri Digambar Sadashiv Gowardhane ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr ... Respondents ... Mr.M.S. Karnik for the petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for respondent State. CORAM : MOHIT S SHAH, C.J. & D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 19th April 2011 P.C. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 2 May 2008 passed by respondent no.2 - Asstt. Commissioner of Police, Nashik and confirmed by the order dated 22 October 2010 passed by the respondent no.1 State Government, (Home Department) rejecting the petitioner’s application for licence to possess an arm under the Arms Act 1959. 2. In view of the order that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to set out all the facts giving rise to this petition. The petitioner claims to be an agriculturist and applied for arms licence. 2 WP 678 of 2011 The application was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nashik City on 2 May 2008. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order before the State Government has been rejected by a speaking order dated 27 October 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to urge that when the licensing authority did not give any reason, the reasons given by the appellate authority cannot be treated as substitute for the reasons required to be given by the licensing authority. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the above contention because the application made by the petitioner on 7 February 2008 was rejected by the licensing authority on 2 May 2008. Period of three years has already passed and therefore, it will be open to the petitioner to make a fresh application for an arms licence under the Arms Act, 1959. If such application is made, the licensing authority shall consider the same in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Act without being influenced by the previous order. Subject to the above, Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (D.G.KARNIK, J)