Ganta Sadanandam v. Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V RAGHUNATH Counsel forthe Respondents No 1 & 3: SRI MR D PRADEEP AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No 2 : Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.21576 OF 2022 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief "Io rssue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more pafiicularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declarin(l the action of respondents herein in canceling the license of the petitioner vide No.C1/2138/2015-M, dated 28.1 1 2015, herein as being illegal, arbitraqt, discrimitntoty and violative of Articles 14, 21 of the Constitutjott of lndia and conseqLlently direct lhe respondents to rertew the license.. .. . .. ..."

2.1 Mr. V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been an arms- license holder since 2009. A renewal application was submitted on 20.08.20'l 5; however, the Collector and District ttlagistrate, by proceedings dated 28.11.2015, declined to renew the license on the grounds of the petitioner's age, alleged ill-health, and an adverse report from the lnspector of Police, P.S. Armoor stating that no threat to the petitioner existed. Contending that the impugned order is without any tenable basis, arbitrary, and 2 unsupported by law, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to renew the license.

2.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further argues that the authority has invoked Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 for refusing renewal. However, neither advanced age nor general health concerns are statutorily recognized grounds under Section 17(3) for revocation or refusal of renewal. lt is submitted that such considerations must have demonstrable and substantive nexus with public safety or misuse of arms, which is conspicuously absent in the present case.

3.1. Conversely, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that respondent No. 2 has filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner, aged about 69 years and allegedly suffering from health problems, is incapable of safely handling a weapon. Further, the lnspector of Police reported that the petitioner does not face any threats, and hence renewal was rightly refused.

3.2. He also points out that a show-cause notice dated '19.10.2015 had been issued, to which the petitioner responded on '16.11.2015. Therefore, the petitionerwas given an opportunity \ \ 3 of hearing, and a reasoned decision was thereafter passed' Accordingly, the impugned order, being justified and based on available material, does not warrant interference'

4.' I have carefully perused the record. lt is undisputed that respondent No' 2 revoked the 5. petitioner's arms license citing advanced age, ill-health, and the lnspector of Police's report that the petitioner does not face any threat.Thelnspector'sreportmerelystatesthatthepetitioneris elderly, has unspecified health problems, and may be unable to carry or operate the weapon. However, the report does not furnish particulars or medical assessment regarding the petitioner's physical condition. Similarly, the conclusion that the petitioner faces no threat is stated without supporting material, parameters, or inquirY details.

6. A show-cause notice dated 19.10.2015, issued on nearly identical grounds, was answered by the petitioner on 16 11'2015' wherein he categorically stated that he suffers from no health issues, is capable of handling a weapon, and is willing to undergo a medical examination. He also asserted that he had received threatening calls from Naxalites and continued to face danger' 4 Despite these representations, the impugned order merely reiterates the earlier grounds without independent analysis, corroboration, or application of mind. The Licensing Authority has simply reproduced the lnspector's report without exercising its own statutory discretion.

7. The primary grounds relied upon age and ill-health are not per se grounds under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 for revocation or refusal of renewal. Any refusal must satisfy the statutory test: that continuance of the license is "against public peace or public safety" or that renewal is otherwise "necessary for security of public peace or public safety." Courts have consistently held that a licensing authority must apply independent judgment and base decisions on cogent material (see KarTash Nath v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 All 297). Mechanical reliance on police reports, without critical evaluation, constitutes non-application of mind and renders the order unsustainable.

8. Further, when the petitioner disputes the alleged health issues and volunteers for medical examination, the licensing authority is obligated to verify such claims through a competent medical officer. This is essential because physical incapacity can \ \ 5 justify refusal only if it demonstrably affects safe handling of arms, which must be medically established. No such assessment has been undertaken in the present case.

9. Regarding threat perception, the law requires a reasoned and evidence based determination, not a bare conclusion. A mere sentence stating the petitioner has "no threats" does not meet the standard of administrative fairness or satisfy the requirement of a II r] reasoned.order mandated under Article 14 of the Constitution. The impugned order lacks the essential elements of independent evaluation, adequate inquiry, and articulation of reasons. Such lacunae amount to arbitrariness, as held in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, where the Supreme Court emphasized that administrative orders must stand or fall on the reasons recorded therein.

10. ln lighl of the above deficiencies, the impugned order fails to withstand judicial scrutiny and is liable to be set aside. The renewal application of the petitioner is accordingly restored to the file of respondent No. 2. The District Collector and Magistrate/Commissioner of Police is directed to reconsider the application afresh, undertake requisite medical and threat- 6 *1 (^' perception assessments, apply independent discretion, and pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. tl. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to closed Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand ITRUE COPY/ SD/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY n5slsrerur REglsrRARa SECTION OFFICER To, l.ThePrincipalsecretary'DepartmentofHome'Secretariat'Stateof fetangand, HYderabad'

2.TheDistrictCollectorandMagistrate,Nizambad. 3. The Station House Officer' Armoor' Nizambad District' 4. One CC to SRI V RAGHUNATH Advocate [OPUC] sTwoCCstoGPFoRHotVlE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat HYderabad. IOUTI 6TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat HYderabad. [OUT]

7. Two CD CoPies D.N GJP \ t HIGH COURT DATED:1111112025 r:i WP.No.21576 of 2022 i: -- t, l;g 14: 03 trc )a, -r-'/ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS