1 29-WP-8427-18.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8427 OF 2018 NAWAZODDIN EJAJODDIN PIRZADE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Mr. Masood Chand Syed, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for Respondent/State ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Date : 06TH FEBRUARY, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02/08/2017, passed by respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in Appeal No.08/2017, whereby the order dated 05/04/2017 passed by respondent No.3 Collector, Jalgaon rejecting permission to the petitioner for armed license, was confirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel Mr. Masood Chand Syed for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. A. D. Wange, for respondent/State. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is agriculturist and there are wild animals in the surrounding vicinity of the petitioner’s field. Therefore, to protect the agricultural field as well as in view of protection of his own he requires armed license. Petitioner filed application before respondent No.3 District Magistrate to get the arms license, pursuant to which report was called from the revenue authorities as well as the concerned police station. The police inspector submitted SVH 2026:BHC-AUG:6357 2 29-WP-8427-18.odt the report positively recommending that there was damage to the crops of petitioner because of wild animals and to protect the crops as well as himself, arms license may be required. The panchanama prepared by the authorities clearly shows that there was damage to the crops. The District Magistrate, contrary to the report submitted by the Police Inspector of concerned police station rejected the application. Even the appellate authority has not considered the same. He submits that the authorities are not supposed to reject the application for arms license which is contrary to Section 14 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.3786/2015 [Sardar Gurtejpal Singh s/o Gurnaib Singh Sidhu Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others], whereby this Court has allowed the petition and directed the District Magistrate to issue arms license to the petitioner therein. 4. Per contra, learned AGP for respondent/State supported the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 and respondent No.3. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the report of concerned Police Inspector as well as the orders passed by respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 and the provisions of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. 6. The petitioner came with a case that to protect his field from wild animals he requires arms license. He tried to point out SVH 3 29-WP-8427-18.odt that there was damage to his crops by wild animals and therefore, he is necessitating the arms license. The report of Police Inspector supports the case of petitioner. 7. As per Section 14 of the Indian Arms Act, District Magistrate is the licensing authority who is competent to decide whether license is to be issued or not. Though panchanama shows that crops are damaged, it cannot inferred that the said damage is caused because of wild animals and in my view for such reasons, arms license should not be granted to the petitioner. I have gone through the entire report as well as the order passed by the District Magistrate. Considering the facts and the nature of application, the District Magistrate has rightly recorded finding that petitioner is not entitled for arms license, which is confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders impugned in the present petition. 8. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) SVH