RAJKUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard finally. I have heard H.V. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.H. Dighe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents in extenso.

(2.) The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order passed by the learned District Magistrate, Nanded, dated 10.10.2011 in proceeding No. 2011/MSK-I/DESK-2/T-5/CR-21, by which the learned District Magistrate, Nanded cancelled the fire arm license granted in favour of the petitioner vide License No. ND/24/2004, together with the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, dated 30.5.2013 in Appeal No. 2012/SAPRA-I/Desk-I/POL-I/CR-17, by which the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act is dismissed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel to test the correctness of the impugned order is that, the learned District Magistrate has considered such material which was not part of the show cause notice, and therefore, according to him, the material which was not supplied or made known to him at the time of issuing show cause notice is being considered by the licensing authority.