srk 1 pil-3-09.sxw THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.3 OF 2009 Mr. Atul Parshuram Bhagat ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Vijay M. Waghela for noticee. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. KATHAWALLA , J. Wednesday, December 08, 2010 P.C. In this petition purporting to be PIL, the petitioner has challenged the licenses under the Arms Act issued by the police authorities in the State of Maharashtra to certain persons, who are not joined as respondents, and with reference to such licenses, the petitioner has also sought directions for enquiry against the concerned officials who had issued the licenses 2. By order dated 12th August, 2010, this Court had recorded the statement made by the learned AGP on behalf of the State that the District Supply Officer, Raigad shall get enquiry conducted into the issuance of ration cards in favour of Rajesh K. Dhage, Jamshed N. Ashraff, Ganesh V. Shande and Reshama R. Chavan. srk 2 pil-3-09.sxw 3. Thereafter, the affidavit in reply dated 23rd September, 2010 has been filed by the Deputy Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai stating that the ration cards were issued to Smt. Reshma Chavan and Shri Ganesh Chavan by following the prescribed procedure but the necessary procedure was not followed before issuance of ration cards to Shri Ashraf Jamshed and Shri Rajesh Dhage. 4. The learned AGP for the State also places on record the instructions dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs (Arms section) laying down the guidelines for Grant of arms Licence for prohibited Bore (PB) weapons. The learned AGP has also placed on record instructions dated 29th November, 2010 issued by the Home Department in the State of Maharashtra laying down the guidelines to be followed by the police authorities and also specifically laying down that the police authorities should verify the identity of the applicant and his residence by calling for authentic documents like voter's card, ration card or any such document. The learned AGP further states that the State Government does not rely only on the ration card as the only authentic document and that even after the applicant for arms licence produces documentary evidence, the concerned police authorities do make personal enquiries about the identity and residence of the concerned applicant. 5. The learned AGP has also invited our attention to the instructions issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution System laying down that the authorities should not insist for ration card as a proof of residence for the purpose of establishing identity because unnecessarily even those who have no intention of buying anything from a fair price shop, apply for ration cards. The prevalence of such srk 3 pil-3-09.sxw cards leads to leakages of subsidized Public Distribution System (PDS) items. Therefore, the use of ration card as document to establish one's identity of proof of residence should not be insisted upon. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the affidavit in reply dated 23rd September 2010 and the instructions issued by the Government of India on 31st March, 2010 for grant of Arms licenses and the instructions dated 29th November, 2010 issued by the Home Department of the State of Maharashtra to the police officers, District Magistrates and District Superintendent of Police and the statement of the AGP that after the applicant for arms licence produces documentary evidence, the concerned police authorities do make personal enquiries about the identity and the residence of the concerned applicant, we are not inclined to pass any further orders on this petition and continue the proceedings any further. 7. We make it clear that any observations made in this order shall not be treated as expression of any opinion on merits of the cancellation of arms licence and that if any person is aggrieved by the cancellation of his arms licence, it would be open to such person aggrieved to take out independent proceedings in that regard. PIL accordingly stands disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.