lVlohd Bin Salam. S/o Lare Salam Bin Ahmed v. The State of Telanoana

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 oI the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstanceS stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order, direction or a writ particurarry in the nature of writ of certiorari decraring that the order passed by the respondent vide memo No. 458lArmsl2023, dated 8.6.2023, is highly illegal, arbitrary, contemptuous in nature and u ncon stitutiona r. consequenfly, this Hon'bre court may be preased to direct the respondent to renew arms license of the petitioner bearing No. 596/B'Hills in the light of directions of this Hon,ble court in wp No. 5858 of 2018, daled 31 .10.2022 '7 - lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition un:er seclion 151 CPC praying that in the c;irc;tl nr st ances stated in the affidavit filo: ir. support of the petition, the High Court rna / k e pleased to paSS an interim di"-.cirrri thereby directing the respondent tc, renerw arms license of the petitioner tr:a"ir gr No. 596/8 'Hills in the light of dire(;tions ol this Hon'ble Court in WP No. li85ll rf' 12018, dated 31 .1O.2022 Counsel for the F etitic ner: SRl. MOHAMMAD ADNAN Counsel for the Flesrrc ndent: AGP FOR HOME The Court made !:he fc llowing: ORDER HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15780 OF 2023 ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to decrare the impugned Memo No.458lArms/2023 dated 0g.06.2023, as being, illegal, arbitrary and contemptuous, being contrary to the directions passed by this Court by the order dared 31.10.2022 inW.p. No.5g5g of 201g.

2. lt is submitted that the petitioner was granted arms licence in 1991 for possessing three (3) weapons i.e. 32 NpB revolver, 12 Bore DBBL gun and 22 rifle vide arms licence No.596lB'Hills. In 2011, the petitioner submitted renewal application dated 04.05.2012 and the same was rejected on the ground that his brother by name Mr. Ahmed Bin Salam was involved in eight (8) crimes and that the weapons of the petitioner were used in commission of such crimes; that the brother of the petitioner is a rowdy sheeter. It is submitted that show cause notice dated

26.05.2011 was issued to the petitioner calling upon his to submit his explanation as to why his arms licence should not be cancelled, since his brother used to collect the weapons and commit offences. Order No.HW3/Armsl596/ Banjara Hills, dated 19.07.2012 was passed by rhe Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad cancelling the arms licence and the l t: t: 2 same was shn lensrxl by the petitioner in W'P' No'2495 3 of 2Cl Z wherein this Court set :sir,lt the order dated 19'07'2012 and rer-rrantled rhe matter to the Commis:;ro'l :r ,:f Police, Hyderabad Thereafter' the rl'ln: missioner of Police pa;set the order No'L&OlABlSOll2Ol3' dated 2"'03'2014' rejecting the t r:n,:'val application of the petitioner of on lhe ' 'ery same ground. It is strrt.(l lhat the petitioner field W'P' No'286(12 'rf 2o16 before 3. this Court ,:ha ]t rrging the order dated 27 '03'201'[ passe d by the Commissiont:r ol l'olice, and the same was disposeil ol directing the petitioner to lrl : a.n appeal under Section 17 of the Arlrs Act' 1959 ('for short'y'.r:l') Ihe appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the respondentr,icle.vlemoNo.l84g6/Arms/2016dated()6.01.2(l8onthe same groun<l S.rlrsequently, the petitioner filed W'P No':i8j'8 of 2018 before this C oru.l rlltl the order dated 3 1 .10.2022 was passect directing the respondent to cr.r ,si<ler the renewal application of the petitior rer without reference to thr. :rcler dated 06.01.2018. Final order dated J8.06.2023 vide Memo ]rt, ' ji8/ Armsl2023 again rejecting the appl cation of the ho s a rowdy petitioner o r tl-s very same ground that his brother, "r sheetel, is irri c,lr t:d in criminal cases and that he ul;ed the petitioner's 3 weapon in commission of offences and there is threat to public law and order and there is no threat perception to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is in principles of natural justice and it is a mockery of the order dated 31.10.2022 passed by this Courr in W.p. No.5858 of 2018. The weapon of the petitioner was lying in the safe deposit since 2021 and there is no evidence to show that the brother of the petitioner used the weapon for committing the alleged offences. In fact, the brother of the petitioner was acquitted in all the criminal cases and the rowdy sheet which was opened against him was also closed by the order dated

15.04.2015 passed by this Courr in W.p. No.3009 of 2015. 5' In the counter affidavit fired by the respondent, it is contended thal Mr. Ahmed Bin Salam, the brother of the petitioner, was involved in several criminal cases and in one criminal case, he confessed that after seizure of his weapon by the police, he has been using the weapon of the petitioner to threaten the counterpart in his criminal activities from which, it is clear that the petitioner did not keep his weapon in a secured place and the same attracts condition contemplated under Section 17(J)(b) of the Act. Further enquiry revealed that the petitioner does not have any threat perception from anybody and there is no genuine requirement of a 4 (1 weapon ari pc . liection 17(3)(a) of the Act. In vierv ,rf th. 6pdg1 d31s6 31.10.202'l pirr,:u:d by this Court in W.p. No.5g5g 01.2tl1)1. rhe request of thc petition':r' lrr renewal of his arms licence was c,onsid,:red and the salne was t i: jelt :d 6' Hearri cru,ed counsel for the petitioner a,cl ierLrn,:d Assistant Govemmelt P eeder lor Home, and perused the matel.ial o,t r:cord.

7. The -esl:,.r rdr:nt relied on the report of the Contmis,s,rrer of police, Flydelabad rlce Lr.No.L&O/Arms_31004312022 d:rtci 06.04.2023 wherein it u ir:r ' rared that the brother of the petitiorLer ivtr. Arrnred Bin Salarn is a ^()t()r' .us rowdy sheeter, involved in eight (t ) ,:ri ninal cases; in Clirne N rt.4:tri of 200g registered with Banjara I tills .)o. ice Station, Mr. Ahmerl Fi ir L Salam, after seizure of his amrs lice n :e No.447l Hu,ayun '\,rag:rr .. confessed that he has been usirLs hrs brother,s (petitioner'st i\t)rrPon to threaten his counterparl irr crirrirar activity. There is reasor-rl blc apprehension of misuse of licence,l jrearms of petitioner anri ru,r-eover there is no threat perception to rhg ps1i11.r... Thus, the Clrrut-i;sioner of police, Hyderabad, has n,:r r.r:conrmended to revoke canccllat r,l of arms licence of the petitioner rrncl t,r r,lnew arns licence. 'lhe ;-esl-,r,trdent stated that as per Condition ( I 0 ) cr1. trre licence, the licensee sh.l ,r,sure to keep his fi rearm in his poss<:ssiorr a. a secured \ t\ 5 place under lock and key when such firearm is not carried on his person or nor under his direct control. Accepting the report of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, the impugned order dated 0g.06.2023 was passed.

8. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no application of mind by the respondent. That there are no criminal cases against the petitioner and Mr. Ahmed Bin Salam, the brother of the petitioner, was acquitted in all the criminal cases. Thus, the question of respondent relying on alleged confession made by Mr. Ahmed Bin Salam, that he used the petitioner's licenced weapon is unwarranted and perverse. 9' Leamed Assistant Government preader for Home submitted that the petitioner had criminal background and further there is no threat perception' The petitioner was granted arms licence in 199r; show cause notice was issued in 20r r and thereafter, series of writ petitions incruding the instant writ petition were filed.

10. In the above factual scenario, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served if the rnatter is again remanded back to the respondent. Even assuming that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal case and that his brother has been acquitted in afl the criminal - 'i-'t 6 cases. it wo rltl s'tifice if direction is issued to the pr:tilioner to submit irr grant of arms licence in statutory forrr.r b1 disclosing '' ,:r n inal cases/convictions if any' Such trPPiicatron shall be fresh aPPlic:ttLor' pendencY o leCommissionerofPolice,Hyderaba,lrlitlriraperiodof disposed of l .'' six (6) we e[.s hereafter by considering whether l.here perception to tl't( Petitioner in accordance with law' is anY threat The :olrrrrissioner of Police' Hyderabad \s sut) moio rmpleaded as 1i respondent N r' I in this writ petition'

12. With the a rrresaid direction' this writ petition is <listror,ed of' There shall be r(l older as to costs' Asr : ,: luel thereto' miscellaneous aPPlicati on:; il a irY, Pending in writ p,:ririrn standcto;f /rrRuE coPY// /_, ,. DE,uip/i[f$i* t ,i sticloN oFFlcER | To,

1. 2. 4 H?:i5tB[]3ffi ffi Eq]]S$[['ni$'r*::re"'Ll::::'" n',,)i.,irln i tourt Two r-;D I c'Pies BM BS \{ HIGH COUR-[' DATED:15104t2O25 ORDER WP.No.15780 ot 2023 y E. iTA; €- ( t r,l ]. 2l B i'14',{ 2025 i\l ':i!'\1 crl t DISPOSING oF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT'CC)STS q Qp i7 d{. s,<$'f"