Mumbai: The Bombay high Court has quashed the order of the Commissioner of Police (CP) of Pune cancelling the arms license of Manorama Khedkar, the mother of controversial former probationary IAS officer Puja Khedkar. The HC has remitted the matter back to the Pune CP for fresh consideration.
“Considering that there is nothing to show that the notice was duly served on the petitioner as mandated in law, the impugned order cannot be sustained,” a bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan said on november 27.
The HC was hearing a plea filed by Manorama challenging the order of the Pune CP dated August 2 cancelling her arms license. Manorama was arrested after a viral video showed her brandishing a gun during an argument over a land dispute in Dhadwali village. The video sparked public outrage and she was arrested on June 18.
The police arrested her from a lodge in Hirkaniwadi village in Raigad and later remanded to judicial custody. Khedkar along with her husband and five others were charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code for attempt to murder, unlawful assembly armed with a deadly weapon, rioting, and criminal intimidation; and the Arms Act.
She was released on bail only on August 2, the day on which the Pune CP passed an order canceling her arms licence.
The CP had issued a notice on July 23 for the cancellation of Khedkar’s arms license, citing the FIR. Since Manorama was in jail, she could not attend the hearing before the CP, leading to cancellation of her arms license. The order stated that since the 10 days’ notice period had lapsed and as none had appeared, it was presumed that Manorama had nothing to say on her behalf.
The HC noted that there was no evidence showing that Khedkar had been served with the notice as required by law. State’s advocate informed the bench that a notice was pasted outside her residence infoming about the hearing before the CP.
“There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner was served with the notice as is mandatory in law. The impugned order reflects that since the notice period of 10 days had lapsed and as none had appeared, it was presumed that the petitioner had nothing to say on her behalf,” the bench said.
The bench, however, highlighted that Manorama’s incarceration during this time made it impossible for her to appear before the authorities. “The petitioner was in custody during the period from June 18, 2024, to August 2, 2024, and could not have appeared before the authority,” the court said.
Hence, the court quashed the CP’s order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.
