212-WP-435-2015.DOC Suchitra IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.435/2015 BHARATLAL R. HALWAI. … PETITIONER Versus STATE OF GOA, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS. … RESPONDENTS Mr Shivan Desai with Ms T. Menezes and Ms Riya Amonkar, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr N. Vernekar, AGA for the State. CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATED: 11th SEPTEMBER 2025 P.C. : 1. he petitioner has placed on record his aidavit dated 10.09.2025. his aidavit states that after his father, Ram Chandra Halwai expired on 07.07.2018, he applied for transfer of a license of a irearm (Revolver of Bore 0.32) to the District Magistrate at Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh. he aidavit further states that the District Magistrate, Jaunpur has granted the petitioner on 23.11.2021, a license to hold the said irearm which belonged to his deceased father. 2. On instructions Mr Shivan Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, makes a statement that the petitioner desires to apply afresh to the Collector, South Goa, for a license for the irearm 11th September 2025 212-WP-435-2015.DOC which is the subject matter of this petition, which is presently in the custody of the Vasco Police Station. he irearm is described in paragraph 5 of the aidavit. 3. It was further submitted that the application for fresh license would be iled, in view of the change of circumstances, namely that the petitioner has now acquired a licensed irearm at Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh. 4. he present petition challenges an order rejecting the renewal of a irearm license in relation to the irearm speciied in paragraph 5 of the aidavit. he petition has also challenged an order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Collector under Section 21 of the Arms Act, 1959, by which the said irearm has been forfeited to the Government of Goa. By the same order the Vasco Police Station was directed to deposit the irearm in the State Armoury at Police Headquarters, Panaji. 5. Reading the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 21, it is clear that in the event a person is granted a license for a irearm which had earlier been directed to be forfeited, there is no impediment for the authority to consider whether the order of forfeiture should be recalled and the irearm restored to the licensee. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that in these circumstances, and on the instructions of the petitioner, he seeks to withdraw this petition and the petitioner would apply for a fresh irearm license under Section 3 r/w Section 13 of the Arms 11th September 2025 212-WP-435-2015.DOC Act, 1959. he petition stands dismissed as withdrawn; he petitioner shall apply for a fresh arms license in terms of the aforesaid provisions which application shall be considered by the Collector on its own merits and without being inluenced by the impugned order dated 20.03.2015, rejecting renewal of license and directing forfeiture of the irearm or the order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Collector under Section 21 of the Arms Act, 1959, by which the said irearm has been forfeited to the Government of Goa. 7. It is made clear that the order of forfeiture earlier passed shall not come in the way of the Collector considering the application on its own merits and taking into consideration the arms license already granted by the Collector, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh for the irearm earlier held by the petitioner's deceased father. It is also clariied that we have not considered the case on merits and all contentions of the parties are left open for the Collector to decide the application on its own merits and as per the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959. 8. he petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid observations. SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J. VALMIKI MENEZES, J. 11th September 2025 Signed by: SUCHITRA NANDAN SINGBAL Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 11/09/2025 17:08:55