Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ashok s/o Dayaram Patil, was aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik (respondent No.2) in Arms Licence Appeal No. 3/2015 under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, whereby his appeal against the cancellation of his arms licence by the Collector, Jalgaon was dismissed. The petitioner had been holding a valid arms licence, which was cancelled by the Collector. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed it without providing a reasoned order. The petitioner then approached the Bombay High Court by way of a criminal writ petition. The main legal issue was whether the appellate authority's order was a speaking and reasoned order as required under Section 18 of the Arms Act. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was cryptic and non-speaking, and that the Collector had not given a proper opportunity of hearing. The State respondents supported the order. The court analyzed the provisions of the Arms Act and found that the Divisional Commissioner's order merely stated that the appeal was dismissed without discussing the grounds or giving reasons. The court held that the order was not a speaking order and violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter back to the Divisional Commissioner for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court directed that the appeal be decided within three months from the date of the order.
Headnote
A) Arms Act - Appeal under Section 18 - Speaking Order - The Divisional Commissioner's order dismissing the appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 must be a speaking and reasoned order. The impugned order was cryptic and non-speaking, failing to consider the grounds raised by the appellant. Held that the order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside (Paras 5-6). B) Arms Act - Cancellation of Licence - Natural Justice - The Collector cancelled the petitioner's arms licence without providing a proper opportunity of hearing and without recording reasons. The appellate authority also failed to remedy this defect. Held that the matter requires reconsideration by the appellate authority after affording a hearing (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dismissing the appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 is a speaking and reasoned order, and whether the cancellation of the petitioner's arms licence was justified.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik in Arms Licence Appeal No. 3/2015 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Divisional Commissioner for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The appeal shall be decided within three months from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Arms Act
- 1959
- Section 18
- Natural Justice
- Speaking Order
- Reasoned Decision
- Cancellation of Licence
- Appeal
- Remand
