Bombay High Court

Sujit Sudhir BiswasversusThe State of Maharashtra

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The petition is dismissed as infructuous because the election for which the firearm licence surrender was required has already been held.

Summary

Petitioner Sujit Sudhir Biswas filed a writ petition challenging a communication dated 21 November 2025 that ordered him to surrender his firearm licence ahead of the Nagar Parishad and Nagar Panchayat elections. He argued that the communication amounted to an unlawful order, contravened Election Commission norms and a prior Division Bench judgment, and that he was exempt because no offence was registered against him. The State of Maharashtra contended that the petition had become infructuous since the elections were already concluded and that the authorities had followed due process. The Court observed that the exigency for surrendering the licence was tied to the now‑completed election, rendering the petition academic and incapable of relief. While affirming that the law laid down by the Division Bench and Election Commission must be observed, the Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous.

Issues considered

Whether the communication dated 21.11.2025 constitutes an order amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Whether the petitioner is exempt from surrendering his firearm licence in the absence of any criminal offence.
Whether the petition is infructuous after the conclusion of the elections for which the surrender was required.
Whether the Division Bench judgment and Election Commission norms are binding on the petitioner.

Subjects

firearm licence
surrender
election law
writ petition
infructuous
Election Commission norms

Judgment

                                                    56-WP-1172-2026 (C).doc




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 1172 OF 2026

Sujit Sudhir Biswas                                               ...Petitioner
       Versus
The State Of Maharashtra                               ...Respondent
                                   …..
Adv. Mahesh Rawool a/w Adv. Neeraj Lavte, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for the Respondents-State.
                                   …..


                                    CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                    DATE     : 28th AUGUST, 2026.

P.C. :

          The grievance of the petitioner is that the action taken against

him for surrendering his firearm licence, communicated on 21.11.2025,

is bad in law and contrary to the norms laid down by the Election

Commission as well as the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in

the case of Govind @ Bhai Ganesh Tilve Versus Vikram Kumar, District

Magistrate; State of Maharashtra, Election Commission represented by

Union of India1. It is contended that the communication dated

21.11.2025 amounts to an order, as it was preceded by an exchange of

show-cause notice and reply by the petitioner. It is submitted that the

petitioner is exempted from surrendering the firearm licence, as no

1   2009 LawSuit(Bom)872.



    ZIP                                                               1 of 2
                                                    56-WP-1172-2026 (C).doc


offence is registered against him, and he has to undergo the rigmarole

of surrendering the firearm and taking it back.

2.         The learned AGP for the respondent-State submits that the

petition has become infructuous because the elections have already

been conducted. The authorities have followed the due procedure of

law. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioner is misplaced.

3.         The order under challenge shows that, for the election of Nagar

Parishad and Nagar Panchayat, which was held in December 2025, the

petitioner was called upon to surrender the firearm. That exigency is

over. It would be purely academic to examine the validity of the order.

There is no point in adjudicating anything in the writ petition as it has

become infructuous. However, it is made clear that the law laid down

by the Division Bench, the norms of the Election Commission, or the

rules laid down by the competent authority need to be followed by the

stakeholders. The parties are governed by the rule of law, which must

be exhibited. The writ petition is disposed of.



                                              [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]




     ZIP                                                              2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…