NITIN Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. Inspite of specific directions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not made available the record of the proceedings with respect to the action of revocation of the arm license issued in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was granted a license under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959, to possess and hold a firearm. By an order dated 4-2-2013, the licensing authority revoked the said license. The petitioner challenged the order of revocation by filing an appeal, as contemplated under Section 18 of the Arms Act, but the appellate authority - the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad - dismissed the appeal holding the action of revocation to be proper.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the license came to be revoked without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. He submitted that a composite order revoking licenses issued in favour of a number of persons was passed by the licensing authority on 4-2-2013, and the only reason given in the said order for revocation of the license issued to the petitioner is that, a case of rioting and offences punishable under Section 323 of the IPC, Section 504 of the IPC, and Section 506 of the IPC, registered on 17-3-2011 was pending against the petitioner.