(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11517 OF 2010 Shaikh Aftab Hussain, Age : 34 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. 43/A, Avishkar Colony, Chalisgaon Road, Dhule. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. District Magistrate, Dhule. 3. Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. .. Respondents. ....................... Mrs. Sabahat T. Kazi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 (2) ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. The report of District Superintendent of Police, Dhule, is in favour of the petitioner. But then, Collector has found that report not acceptable. Only because of that finding, weapon license has been denied to the petitioner. In further appeal, Divisional Commissioner has accepted that finding and in addition, has also mentioned that the petitioner does not possess a training certificate issued by recognized weapon training institution. 3. Mrs. Sabahat Kazi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that when District Superintendent of Police recommended case of the petitioner and found reasons given by him sufficient, Collector or then, Divisional Commissioner could not have taken other view of the matter only because such other view is possible. It is further urged that the petitioner has not been even heard on the other ground assigned by the Divisional Commissioner for rejecting the weapon license. 4. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, learned Assistant Government (3) Pleader appearing for the respondents, has supported the impugned order. She states that merely because there were general riots, that does not authorize all residents of the area to apply for and to obtain a weapon. It is further pointed out that no training certificate is issued in favour of the petitioner and what he has produced is only a communication from arms dealer disclosing that the petitioner is given necessary instructions. 5. There is nothing before this Court to show whether law requires a training certificate from a recognized weapon training institution, as mentioned in paragraph 5(iii) of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. It is apparent that the petitioner has not been heard in relation thereto. 6. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to examine the controversy involved in the matter on merits. It would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Divisional Commissioner for decision afresh. 7. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 29th October 2010, passed by the respondent no.3 / Divisional Commissioner, in Weapon License Appeal No. 6/2010, is quashed and set aside. The matter (4) is remanded to the Divisional Commissioner for taking fresh decision. The respondent no.3 shall hear the petitioner and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, as early as possible and in any case by 30th April 2011. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before respondent no.3 / Divisional Commissioner on 7th March 2011 and abide by his further instructions in the matter. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11517