Gurrala Murni Reddy v. The Government of A.P

Counsel for petitioners: Sri C. Siva Sankar Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Home The Court made the following order: ORDER: The order passed by the second respondent in D.Dis No.C3/496/M/2005, dated 6.06.2007, whereby the second respondent has informed the petitioner that his request for renewal of Arms licence No.Duvvur-10 in respect of DBBL Gun has been rejected, is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner claims that he is the Chairman of the Single Window of Duvvur Mandal and belongs to a political family. Earlier he was also a Director of the District Cooperative Central Bank, Kadapa District and President of Mandal Committee of Congress Party. He procured a 12 Bore DBBL gun in the year 1990 for self-defence, in pursuance of gun licence granted by the second respondent through proceedings dated 18.11.1980, and the same was being renewed from time to time till 31.12.2003. He applied for renewal of the said licence in the year 2003 for a period of three years from 1.01.2004 to

31.12.2006. Thereupon a report from the concerned officers that the petitioner was involved in Crime No.9 of 2005 for the offences committed under Sections 147, 148, 307, 324 r/w 34 IPC of P.S. Chagalamarri, Kurnool District. Based on the same, the renewal application was rejected and the licence in respect of the weapon was also suspended. Consequently, the petitioner deposited the weapon with the fourth respondent. The appeal preferred against rejecting the renewal of licence was also dismissed. In the meanwhile, it is stated that the petitioner was acquitted in the aforesaid case in Crime No.9 of 2005. Thereupon, the fourth respondent, i.e., the Station House Officer, Duvvur Police Station, Kadapa District, addressed a letter dated 10.05.2006 to the petitioner informing that he is under threat from the Maoists and cautioned him to take precautions for his safety. In the circumstances the petitioner again applied for renewal of his licence vide application dated

13.11.2006. The second respondent, however, rejected the said application under the impugned orders dated 6.06.2007, that is how this writ petition is filed. Heard Sri Challa Siva Sankar learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Learned Government Pleader for Home on behalf of the respondents. It is not in dispute that, earlier the petitioner was granted Arms licence, which was valid till 2003. It is also not in dispute that there is a threat perception from the Maoists as per the police notice dated

10.05.2006 issued by the fourth respondent herein. It is also not in dispute that since the petitioner was acquitted in Crime No.9 of 2005 the said impediment no longer exists. In the light of these undisputed facts, the respondents are under obligation to consider the application for renewal as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Arms Act 1959 (for short ‘the Act’). Section 15 of the Act enjoins that a licence under Section 3 of the Act shall unless revoked earlier, continue in force for a period of three years from the date on which it is granted or for such a shorter period as may be determined on the facts of the each case. Sub- section (3) enjoins that unless the Licensing Authority for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise decides in any case, be renewable for the same period for which the licence was originally granted and shall be so renewable from time to time, and the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 shall apply to the renewal of a licence as they applied to the grant thereof. It is clear from the said provision that if the Licensing Authority is not inclined to renew the licence it is bound to record reasons in writing. Section 13 and 14 of the Act also require that before such refusal the Authority shall call for report of the officer in-charge of the nearest Police Station, within a time frame and the authority shall take into consideration such a report before passing the orders under Section 15 of the Act. In the instant case, a perusal of the impugned order dated

6.06.2007 would show that the Licensing Authority has not recorded any reasons. Nothing is indicated as to why the application has been rejected and the circumstances which are alleged to have been reported by the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, also have not been indicated. The impugned order is vitiated on account of lack of reasons recorded. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted and the second respondent is directed to reconsider and pass appropriate reasoned orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 23rd September, 2010 Js.