Manish Ratanlal Agrawal vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

The Petitioner has filed the present petition thereby praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by Respondent No.2, whereby the arms licence had been permanently cancelled.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Brahme, submits that the Petitioner was granted an arms licence in the year 2006. The order passed by Respondent No.2 cancelled the said arms licence, and hence the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.327/2023 challenging the order dated 31.03.2023. This Court allowed the petition and remanded the matter back to Respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.2/Commissioner renewed the licence for the period from 24.04.2019 to 23.04.2024.

The said licence, renewed by Respondent No.2, was to expire on 23.04.2024, and accordingly the Petitioner applied for renewal of the licence on 14.03.2024, well within time and prior to the expiry of the stipulated period. The Petitioner also submitted a reminder for consideration of his renewal application vide communication dated 13.08.2024. However, no action was undertaken by the Respondents. The Petitioner thereafter submitted another reminder seeking renewal of his licence, which was received by Respondent No.2 vide communication dated 30.09.2024. However, no decision was taken, and consequently the Petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.885/2024 seeking an early decision by Respondent No.2/Competent Authority on his application for grant of licence. The Division Bench, by order dated 11.11.2024, directed Respondent No.2 to decide the application within four weeks. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner received an order dated 13.12.2024 informing him that the arms licence issued in his favour is permanently cancelled. The Petitioner has, therefore, challenged the said order before this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Brahme, submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Authority without considering the factual aspects in proper perspective and without any justification. The only ground stated by the Competent Authority is that a non-cognizable offence was registered against the Petitioner vide Crime No.545/2020 under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Nandanvan Police Station, wherein it was alleged that the Petitioner had extended a threat to his tenant. Apart from the aforesaid non-cognizable offence, no other ground was cited for rejecting the arms licence of the Petitioner. The statement of the said tenant/Manoj Agrawal, was recorded by the Competent Authority behind the back of the Petitioner, and reliance upon such statement was made to reject the prayer for renewal of the licence.

The learned APP submits that a proper inquiry was undertaken by the Competent Authority on the application filed by the Petitioner for renewal of his arms licence. The statement of Manoj, the tenant of the Petitioner, was recorded, and it was found that the Petitioner was always in possession of a gun whenever he visited the tenanted premises. The said witness Manoj, therefore, lodged a non-cognizable offence against the Petitioner for allegedly giving him threats, which came to be registered as N.C. No.545/2020 under Section 506 of the IPC. Moreover, it was found that there were no threats to the Petitioner. After assessing such threat perception and considering the non-cognizable offence, i.e., N.C. No.545/2020 registered against the Petitioner/Manish, the application came to be rejected by Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.1, upon going through the impugned order passed by Respondent No.2, found that no error is committed in rejecting the said application for renewal of arms licence and therefore rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner. The petition is devoid of substance and is thus liable to be rejected.

I have gone through the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the State Minister, Maharashtra, and the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by Respondent No.2/Commissioner of Police. A perusal of the said orders shows that the authorities have relied upon a non-cognizable offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered against the Petitioner so as to deny him renewal of his licence. The said offence is a non-cognizable offence stated to have been registered by Manoj, who was the alleged tenant of the Petitioner. Such a non-cognizable offence could not have been relied upon by the Respondent/Authorities to reject the application for renewal of the licence. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that a false case was filed by the tenant only with an intention to wreak vengeance against the landlord, cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the allegations pertain merely to a telephonic threat, and the statement of Manoj further shows that whenever the Petitioner used to visit, he was carrying a gun with him. Apart from the aforesaid allegation, there is no allegation that the Petitioner at any time pointed the gun towards Manoj for vacating the premises. The statement nowhere shows any illegal use of the said gun by the Petitioner, which had been licensed to him for almost 20 years since 2006. There are no cognizable offences registered against the Petitioner which have resulted in the filing of a charge-sheet against him. The only non-cognizable offence relied upon by the authorities to reject the application for renewal is therefore untenable and liable to be set aside.

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramlal Bisramji Katre Vs. Appellate Authority & State Minister and Others dated 10.07.2026 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 316/2026, was pleased to observe as under :

The aforesaid observations were made in a case where the Petitioner therein was alleged to have committed grievous offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other offences under Sections 387 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, however, only a cognizable offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, pertaining merely to threats extended over a telephone to the tenant, is relied upon by the authorities below to refuse renewal of the Petitioner’s licence. Hence, the impugned order passed by both Respondent No.1/State Minister as well as Respondent No.2/Competent Authority in denying renewal of the licence of the firearm, which had been granted in favour of the Petitioner in the year 2006, appears to be arbitrary, illegal, and cannot be sustained. I am, therefore, inclined to pass the following order :

The Writ Petition is allowed.

The order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the State Minister (Home) (City), Maharashtra State, and the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by Respondent No.2, whereby the arms licence of the Petitioner has been permanently cancelled, are hereby quashed and set aside.

It is hereby directed that Respondent No.2 shall renew Arms Licence No.5066/III/NGP/2006 in view of the Petitioner’s application dated 14.03.2024.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.