1 wp 316.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 316 OF 2026 Shri Ramlal Bisramji Katre, Aged 58 years, Occupation – Business, R/o Bungalow No. 46, H.B. Town, Old Pardi Naka, Bhandara Road, Nagpur. …. PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Appellate Authority & State Minister (Home) (Special), Home Ministry Maharashtra State, Home Department, 2nd Floor, Mantralaya, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Madam Kama Road, Mumbai- 400005 through its Upper Chief Secretary. 2) Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City, Nagpur. 3) Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Head Quarter), Police Commissioner, Nagpur City, Nagpur. …. RESPONDENTS ____________________________________________________________________ Mr. U.K. Bisen, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Chutake, Addl.P.P. for the respondents/State. ____________________________________________________________________ CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : 10-07-2026 JUDGMENT : (PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2026:BHC-NAG:8772-DB 2 wp 316.26.odt 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 10-03-2026 passed by respondent No.1-State Minister (Home), Maharashtra State on the appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, thereby dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 27-11-2019 passed by respondent No.2- Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City, Nagpur and communicated the said order through his Section Officer vide communication dated 12-03-2026 cancelling the arms licence of the petitioner. 3. As per contention of the petitioner, he is a permanent resident of Nagpur and running his business of sale and purchase of field properties and mainly the sale of plots after demarcating layouts. He is also carrying aforesaid activities and, therefore, as he is having an apprehension, he applied for arms licence for self protection. Upon considering the application made by the petitioner in the year 2005 the licence for keeping revolver/pistol has been granted to him vide Arm Licence No. 4937/III/NGP/ 2005 and permission was granted to have a one 32 bore pistol No.1504. The petitioner had complied with all the terms and conditions for grant of licence and thereafter the licensing authority granted licence to the petitioner. In the year 2001, when the petitioner was carrying out his business, some offences were registered vide Crime No. 77/2001 against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act on the complaint made by the petitioner’s wife Smt. Kusum Ramlal Katre on 11-04-2001. 3 wp 316.26.odt 4. In the year 2007, when the petitioner was carrying out his business of selling plots and as he was having an apprehension, he obtained the said licence. Subsequent to obtaining the said licence, on 03-01-2012 one Ananta Soni was done to death and, therefore, his mother had lodged report against two unknown persons, on the basis of which crime was registered vide Crime No.2/2011 under Sections 302, 452 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station Kalmana, Nagpur, wherein the petitioner was implicated and subsequently he was discharged from the said offence. It is further contention of the petitioner that subsequent to that he again implicated in Crime No.45/2013 under Sections 387, 363, 143 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code from which also he was discharged. Thus, it is submitted that now no offence is pending against him. Despite of the fact, his application for renewal of the licence was rejected by respondent No.2 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Minister (Home), Maharashtra State. The said appeal was also dismissed by the said Minister and, therefore, he approached to this Court. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, who reiterated the said contentions and submitted that by applying Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, his appeal was dismissed by the Minister. In fact Section 17(3)(b) is not applicable in his case as Section 17(3) talks about “the licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence”. Initially considering the apprehension raised by the petitioner, the licence was granted to him and now as no criminal offence is 4 wp 316.26.odt registered against him, therefore, there is no reason for the State authority to reject his application for renewal or refuse to renew the licence. It is further submitted by him that the Minister has applied the wrong provisions and thereby the present petition of the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 6. The State filed affidavit-in-reply and denied the contentions of the present petitioner. It is submitted that there is an apprehension that if the licence was renewed, the present petitioner would take disadvantage of the same and misused it and, therefore, respondent No.2 as well as the State Minister rightly rejected the prayer of the present petitioner to grant or renew the licence of the petitioner to have an arm. 7. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire record, there is no dispute that the present petitioner was involved in Crime No.2/2011 registered under Sections 302, 452 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and another Crime No.45/2013 registered under Sections 387 and 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Undisputedly, the petitioner is discharged from the said offences. The relevant provisions in respect of grant of licence are enumerated in Chapter III of the Arms Act. Section 13 refers to grant of licences. Section 14 refers to refusal of licences. Section 15 refers to duration and renewal of licence and Section 17 refers to variation, suspension and revocation of licences. Section 13(2) reads as under : 5 wp 316.26.odt “13. Grant of licences. -(1) ...... (2) On receipt of an application, the licensing authority shall call for the report of the officer in charge of the nearest police station on that application, and such officer shall send his report within the prescribed time. (2-A) The licensing authority, after such inquiry, if any, as it may, consider necessary, and after considering the report received under sub-section (2), shall, subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, by order in writing either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same. Provided that where the officer in charge of the nearest police station does not send his report on the application within the prescribed time, the licensing authority may, if it deems fit, make such order, after the expiry of the prescribed time, without further waiting for that report.” Section 14 speaks that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant licence on grounds stipulated under Section 14. Under Section 17(2) the licensing authority gets power to vary, suspend or revoke the licence which was already granted. In the present case, the appellate authority exercised powers under Section 17(3) (b) which reads as under : “17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licenses - (1) ..... (2) ..... (3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence - (a) ..... (b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or” 8. It is significant to note that Section 17(3)(b) authorises the licensing authority to cancel or revoke the licence for the security of public peace or for 6 wp 316.26.odt public safety. The provisions indicate that in case the licensing authority is subjectively satisfied that in a given case if continuation of licence endangers public peace or public safety then the licensing authority is empowered to cancel or revoke the licence. 9. As far as the present case is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor though submitted that there is apprehension of misuse of the said licence but the said apprehension is not based upon any material. Therefore, at this stage, the apprehension raised by the State appears to be baseless. In the present case, the licensing authority has already granted a licence to the present petitioner and there is no complaint that either he is misused it or taken disadvantage of the same. Therefore, the contention of the State that as there is an apprehension that he would misuse the same, is not sustainable as it is without sufficient material on record. 10. In the present case, the arms licence was granted for personal safety and security after due enquiry conducted by the licensing authority in accordance with the provisions contained in the Arms Act, 1959. The provisions of the Arms Act with regard to the suspension or cancellation of the arms licence cannot be exercised lightly in an arbitral manner. In view of that, the present petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order. 7 wp 316.26.odt Order (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The order passed by respondent No.1-State Minister dated 10-03-2026 in the appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act filed by the petitioner and order dated 27-11-2019 passed by respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City, Nagpur cancelling the arms licence No.4937/III/NGP/2005 are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) We direct respondent No.2 to renew the Arms Licence No.4937/III/NGP/2005 in view of the petitioner’s application dated 15-09-2015. 11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (Nivedita P. Mehta, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) adgokar