12. WP 2882-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2882 OF 2010 Mr. Harshvardhan Deepak Mankar, ] Aged about 26 years, residing at ] Bhandarkar Road, Lane No. 11, ] Parth Classic, Pune – 4. ] Petitioner Versus 1. The Commissioner of Police, ] Pune. ] 2. The State of Maharashtra, ] (Through the Addl. Chief Secretary, ] Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. ] Respondents Mr. S.R. Boralkar i/b Mr. Veera Shinde for the Petitioner Mr. A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P. for the State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 11th MARCH, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (per HARDAS, J): 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 1 12. WP 2882-10.doc 3. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which impugns the order passed by the Appellate Authority, dated 20th April 2010, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune dated 19th September 2001 cancelling the arms licence of the petitioner. 4. Perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority clearly indicates that the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal has not given any reasons. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor upon perusal of the record also states that no order has been received giving any detailed reasons. Perusal of the impugned order then also reveals that the Appellate Authority has not dealt with various grounds urged by the appellant for quashing and set aside the order of the Commissioner of Police which was impugned in the appeal. Though it is not expected that the Appellate Authority should give a reasoned order like a judgment, yet while exercising quasi judicial function, the Appellate Authority is expected to give some reasons especially to deal with the submissions advanced before it by the appellant. The present impugned order is devoid of any reasons. 5. In that light of the matter, we are inclined to partly allowed this 2 12. WP 2882-10.doc petition quashing and setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20th April 2010 and remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that the Appellate Authority would decide the appeal within four weeks from today. 6. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking before this Court and accordingly while remanding the appeal back to the Appellate Authority, direct the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 7. Rule is thus made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor undertakes to communicate this order to the Appellate Authority. 9. Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this order [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] 3 12. WP 2882-10.doc 4