1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2460 OF 2009 Iliyaskhan Abdul Majidkhan Age 33 years, Occ. Editor, R/o. Lane No.1 Near Ambedkar Statue Naregaon, MIDC, Chikhalthana, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] The Police Commissioner, Aurangabad. .. Respondents --- Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S.D. Kaldate, AGP for respondents. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 29TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 2 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 30th May, 2005, passed by the respondent No.2 thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for grant of Arms Licence and the order passed by the respondent NO. 1 dated 26th November, 2008, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order refusing to grant licence has been passed by the respondent NO.2 by an unreasoned order. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. 3. Perusal of Section 14(1)(b)(i)of the Arms Act, reads thus :- "14. Refusal of licences : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant :- (a)... (b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II, : (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe :- (1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or (2) to be of unsound mind, or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act 3 , or (ii) ..." It could thus be seen that if grant of licence is to be refused, it could be on the aforesaid 3 grounds. It could further be seen that sub- section 14(3) mandates the authority refusing licence to record in writing the reasons and furnish to the concerned person, on demand, a brief statement of the same. However, the furnishing copy can be dispensed with, if it is not in the public interest to issue the same. 4. Perusal of the affidavit in reply would reveal that the respondent No.2 has acted on the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police. It could thus clearly be seen that the order is not only violative of Section 14 of the Arms Act but also violative of the principles of natural justice. The authority has not recorded any reasons while refusing licence. The authority has also relied upon the material which is against the petitioner without the petitioner having an opportunity to meet the allegations made against the petitioner. 5. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 to consider it afresh in accordance with law. Needless to state that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard before passing the order on remand and that the petitioner shall also be supplied with the material which is sought to be used against him. The respondent No.2 shall decide the matter, on remand, within 2 months from today. 4 6. An authenticated copy of this order be given to the learned AGP to act upon. [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/