NAWAZODDIN EJAJODDIN PIRJADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:6357


                                               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
                                  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