{1} CWP No.839/2011 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.839 OF 2011 Rajabhau Shriram Phad PETITIONER Age-33 years, Occ-Business R/o Kanerwadi, Tq-Parli Vaijnath, Dist-Beed VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Divisional Commissioner, Commissioner Office, Aurangabad 3. District Magistrate, Collector Office, Beed, Tq & Dist-Beed 4. Superintendent of Police, Dist-Beed 5. Police Sub Inspector, Parali Vaijnath (Urban) Tq-Parali Vaijnath, Dist-Beed ....... Mr.G.D.Kale h/f Mr.M.V.Nagargoje, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 14 th October 2011 {2} CWP No.839/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 13.01.2011 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad thereby remitting the case of the petitioner back to the District Magistrate, Beed for decision afresh in accordance with law by giving him opportunity of hearing. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not intend to press the relief in terms of prayer clause “C”. In the premise, the petition, so far as it relates to prayer clause “C” stands dismissed. 4. Such of the facts, as are necessary for the decision of this petition, may briefly be stated thus- {3} CWP No.839/2011 District Magistrate, Beed, had issued a license under the Arms Act, to hold revolver in favour of the petitioner in June 2005. It appears that thereafter an offence was registered against the petitioner in which charge sheet was filed, however, vide order dated 12.06.2009 passed by JMFC, Parali Vaijnath, the petitioner has been acquitted. It appears that during the pendency of the said case against the petitioner, the license issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Beed. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the said license was canceled by the District Magistrate, Beed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence, being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal u/s 18 of the Arms Act before Division Commissioner, Aurangabad. It appears that vide order dated 13.01.2011, the Divisional Commissioner has allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the District Magistrate, Beed to decide the case of the petitioner, afresh in accordance with law by affording opportunity to the petitioner. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the Divisional Commissioner has remitted the matter to District {4} CWP No.839/2011 Magistrate to decide the case of the petitioner on 13.01.2011, yet inspite of his repeated applications, the District Magistrate has not decided his case. In the premise it is prayed to direct the District Magistrate to decide the said proceedings as expeditiously as possible. 6. Learned APP left the matter to the discretion of the Court. 7. Admittedly, the Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated 13.01.2011 has remitted the case to the District Magistrate with direction to decide the same in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the petitioner. I do not find any impediment in giving direction to the District Magistrate to decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated time. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause “E”. District Magistrate, Beed is hereby directed to decide the pending proceeding of the petitioner within a period of 3 {5} CWP No.839/2011 months from the receipt of writ of this judgment. Rule is made absolute as indicated above. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/cwp839-11