Mr. Tariq Ahmed v. The State of Telangana
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, 'the writ petition is dismissed as
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Arms Act, 1959 s. 17
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
Cause title
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 35174 OF 2025 Between: Mr. Tariq Ahmed, S/o Khaleel Ahmed, Age abgu! J2 years,-pcc.. Renowne{ Shooter,' R/o. H.No. 18-2-5313, Jangammet, Falaknuma, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500053. AND 1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretiary, Home Department' Govern m ent of Telah gana, Secretariat, Hyd erabad. . The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City Police, Hyderabad, Telangana. . The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South East Zone, Hyderabad 2 3 ...PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstanc, es stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to: a) lssue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly a writ of mandamus, or any other writ declaring the proceedings dated 23.07.2025 issued by the Respondent No.1 - Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad - cancetling the Petitioner's Arms Licence No. 89/Chatrinaka (Old) I 316/Chandrayangutta (New) as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and viotative of the principles of natural justice and Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959; b) Direct the Respondents to forthwith restore and renew the Petitioner's said Arms Licence, and permit him to lawfully possess, train with, and transport his licensed firearms for sporting purposes; c) cons; equenfly, direct the Respondents to forthwith consider the repre'sentations dated 1g-09-202s, 1g-09-202s and provisionaly restore and renew the petitioner's Arms Licence No. g9/chatrinaka (old) / 3lo/chandrayangutta (New), so as to enable the petitioner a nationally rankerd shooter to relain, train with, and lawfully use his licensed sporting firearms for participation in the forthcoming 6gth Nationar shooting Chanrpionship 2025-26 scheduled in December 2O2S at New Delhi, and in all preparatory events leading thereto; lA NO: 1 OF Z0Zs Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pteased to direct tfre Respondents to forthwith consider the representations dated 18-09-2025' 19-09-2025 and provisionally restore. and renew the petitioner's Arms Licence No. g9/chatrinaka (ord) / 3lG/chandrayangutta (New), so as to enable the F'etitioner a nationally ranked shooter to retain, train with, and lawfully use his licernsed sporting firearms for participation in the forthcoming 6gth National shooting championship 2o25-26 scheduled in December 2025 at New Delhi, and in all preparatory events teading thereto; and, pending the disposal of this writ petition Counsel for the petitioner : SRI MOHD ISMAIL KHAN Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR HOME The Court made the foltowing: ORDER I i !' I I i I i! I I i HONOURABLE SRI JIISTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR TITRIT PETITIO.N No.35174 OF 2O2S
ORDER:
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present writ petition. \ .'
2. Permission is accorded to withdraw the writ petition.
Operative part
3. Accordingly, 'the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs. SDI M. ,,TRUE COPY/ N OFFICER To,
One CC to SRI' MOHD ISMAIL KHAN' Advocate [OPUCI 2. TwoCCstoGPFoRHoME,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana.[oUT] 3. Two CD CoPies evu f9- BM a I i i ! I I I HIGH GOURT DATED i1911112025 .f t' ,..'] 'i B 6, b, {ttrtfllfl j. (. * ORDER: WP.No.35174 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS G *fA Sl.t"
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, 'the writ petition is dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Arms Act, 1959 — s. 17; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.