Telangana High Court
Mohd. Mukarram Ali vs The Appellate Authority Under Section ... on 8 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.8402 of 2026
DATE OF ORDER: 08.04.2026
Between:
Mohd. Mukarram Ali
...Petitioner
AND
The Appellate Authority under Section 18
of the Arms Act, 1959,
The Special Chief Secretary to Government,
Home (Arms) Department, Government of Telangana,
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat,
Hyderabad and others
...Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the proceedings bearing Letter No.2134/Arms/2026, dated 06-03- 2026 passed by the 1st Respondent/Appellate Authority, and to quash and set aside the same as being ex facie illegal, void ab initio, passed without jurisdiction, in violation of the principles of natural justice, and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st Page 2 of 7 Respondent/Appellate Authority to rehear and dispose of the Petitioners statutory Appeal filed under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 against the proceedings No.HS-2/Arms/358/Moghalpura, dated 19-12-2025, together with the Interim Application filed under Section 18(6) of the said Act, in accordance with law, after due notice and full opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, within such period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and pending such rehearing and disposal, to direct the Respondents not to insist upon or enforce the direction contained in proceedings No. HS- 2/Arms/358/Moghalpura, dated 19-12-2025 requiring deposit/surrender of Arms Licence No.358/Moghalpura and the licensed firearms bearing No.GSF-21.03.02154 (0.32 NPB Pistol) and No.19182 (12 Bore DBBL Gun) and to pass...."
2. Heard Sri Azhar, learned counsel representing Sri Md.Amer Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for the respondents and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is holding a valid Arms Licence No.358/Moghalpura since 2012, originally issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Hyderabad under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act, 1959'). The said licence was renewed periodically and the petitioner never misused the weapons. The petitioner Page 3 of 7 served as an elected Corporator of Moghalpura Division for two consecutive terms (2009-2015), actively addressing civic issues, land use, encroachments, and public grievances, which led to conflicts with vested interests and unlawful actors. Currently, the petitioner is engaged in real estate investment and commercial operations across multiple states, he frequently travels on isolated highways, often during early or late hours, handling high-value land transactions without official security. The past political visibility, public profile and occupational exposure creates ongoing threat, justifying the renewal of the arms licence for over twelve years.
4. On 11.08.2025, respondent No.4 issued a show cause notice vide proc.No.HS-2/Arms/358/Moghalpura raising objections to the renewal of the petitioner's Arms licence based on the criminal cases. In response, the petitioner submitted a reply stating that seven out of eight cases had resulted in acquittal and one in conviction, which had been previously disclosed during earlier renewals without issue. Despite the legal position that acquitted cases and a non- Page 4 of 7 final conviction cannot justify license cancellation, respondent No.3, while the show cause notice was issued by respondent No.4, passed an order on 19.12.2025 vide Procs.No.HS-2/Arms/358/Moghalpura cancelling Arms Licence No.358/Moghalpura under Section 17 of the Act, 1959, directing the petitioner to surrender the licensed firearms within 90 days. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner preferred an Appeal under Section 18 of the Act, 1959 before respondent No.1 vide No.18/2026. Respondent No.1 without assigning any specific reason has simply rejected the application made by the petitioner except stating that there is a delay of 9 days in filing the Appeal.
5. It is further submitted that admittedly the Appeal was filed with a delay of 9 days, no opportunity was given to explain or seek condonation of the delay. Relying on sub- section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, 1959 this is adversely affecting the petitioner's right to uphold the granted licence. The petitioner's conviction in C.C.No.331 of 2016 arising out of Crime No.189 of 2015 for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 504 r/w 34 IPC has imprisonment under 7 Page 5 of 7 years, which are not serious offences. None of the other registered cases involve allegations relevant to issuance of the Arms licence. Rejecting the petitioner's case on such technical grounds would amount to abuse of process of law and arbitrary action by respondent No.1. Hence, seeks indulgence of this Court to pass appropriate orders.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on instructions would submit that the petitioner held an arms license for two guns i.e., 32 pistol and a 12-bore double- barrel gun valid in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. He applied for renewal after it expired on 31.12.2024. The petitioner has been involved in 8 criminal cases, but at least two cases from 2012 ended in acquittal.
The police issued notice vide No.HS-
2/Arms/358/Moghalpura, dated 19.12.2025 directing the petitioner to either sell or deposit his two guns with a licensed arms dealer within 90 days and submit the sale details. The petitioner acknowledged the said notice on 4.1.2026. The petitioner challenged the same through an appeal vide No.18/2026 to the Special Chief Secretary Page 6 of 7 (Home/Arms Department). However, the appeal was rejected on 6.3.2026 because it was filed after the 30-day limit and under relevant provisions of the Arms Act and Rules. The Commissioner of Police officially canceled his arms license and reiterated that the petitioner must sell or deposit the guns by 4.4.2026 and submit the details.
7. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's arms licence was cancelled by the Commissioner of Police on 19.12.2025 for two reasons. First, the petitioner was convicted in Crime No.189 of 2015. Second, it was stated that the petitioner had submitted a reply, but in fact no reply was received. It is also noted that the petitioner filed an appeal, but it was rejected by respondent No.1 on the ground that it was not filed within the prescribed time under Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, 1959. Regarding the delay, this Court is not satisfied with the explanation, as the exact number of delayed days was not clearly stated and no interlocutory application for condonation of delay was filed. However, the Page 7 of 7 petitioner's counsel submitted that the appeal was filed with a delay of only 9 days, this Court believes that respondent No.1 can look into this issue, especially if the petitioner submits a request to excuse the delay, since respondent No.1 has the authority to decide on it. Therefore, without making any observation on the merits and demerits of the case, the Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter back to respondent No.1, who shall, in turn, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for filing of interlocutory application for condonation of delay under Section 18(2) Act, 1959 and it is for the said authority to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
8. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dated: 08.04.2026 VSU