DEVENDRA TUKARAM KATKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 22/4/2008, passed by the respondent No. 3 Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad dismissing Appeal No. 2007/GB/Desk-I/pol-1/CR-11 filed by petitioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 and confirming the order dated 5th April 2007 passed by the respondent No. 2 Collector/District Magistrate, Parbhani cancelling/revoking the revolver licence No. 07/05 possessed by the petitioner in respect of revolver No. A-1429/04. The facts leading to the case are as under:

(2.) The petitioner is a Tahsildar posted at Degloor, District Nanded. It seems that on 5/3/2007, there were certain altercations between the petitioner and one Shri Rajesh Pandit the Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor on the issue of petitioner talking on his cell phone in a loud voice by using unparliamentary language in respect of said Shri Rajesh Pandit. The said Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor, vide his confidential letter dated 6/3/2007 at Exh.C to the petition, communicated the said incident to the Collector/District Magistrate, Nanded, who accordingly forwarded the said confidential communication under his covering letter dated 20/3/2007 at Exh.B, to the Collector/District Magistrate, Parbhani for taking action of cancellation of arms licence of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is likely to misuse the same. The Collector/District Magistrate, Parbhani, the competent authority to issue and revoke or cancel the licence under the Arms Act, 1959 by his order dated 5/4/2007 at Exh.A to the petition, cancelled the revolver licence of the petitioner and directed the police authorities at Parbhani to seize the revolver and deposit it in the arms store and to submit the compliance report.

(3.) Being aggrieved by this order dated 5/4/07, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 before the respondent No. 3 Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. After hearing the petitioner, the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, dismissed the said appeal by recording finding that the impugned order has been passed after appreciating the evidence on record and sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend the case. It was observed that the petitioner is a government servant and was working as Tahsildar, Degloor and it was expected that he will behave in a more responsible manner and not in the manner in which the Collector, Nanded mentioned in his report dated 20/3/2007. With these observations, the appeal was dismissed.