Telangana High Court
G.Vaasudeevudu vs The State Of Telangana on 25 July, 2024
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.13848 OF 2023
ORDER :(ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.1 - the Principal Secretary, Home (Arms) Department, in issuing the memo vide No.11735/Arms/2022 dated 24.11.2022 as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
2. It is submitted that petitioner is a practicing advocate since 2006. During his practice he appeared in several cases for which he received threatening calls from unknown persons. Petitioner was implicated as accused in S.C.No.339 of 2007 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Machilipatnam, in which he was acquitted. The de facto complainant in the above case is the brother of Ex-Member of Parliament and he developed a grudge to eliminate the petitioner. Hence, in order to protect himself, petitioner intended to obtain Arms License, as such, he submitted an application dated 18.07.2022 before respondent No.2
- the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, for grant of Arms 2 License for possessing Revolver/Pistol. Further, as he has threat from both the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, he submitted application for Arms License with "All India" validity.
3. It is submitted that respondent No.2 forwarded petitioner's application to respondent No.1 not recommending granting Arms License to him. Based on the recommendation of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 issued impugned memo vide No.11735/Arms/2022 dated 24.11.2022 rejecting petitioner's application for grant of Arms License.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that impugned memo was issued by respondent No.1 without conducting any enquiry; without obtaining threat perception report and without giving opportunity of hearing to him. Therefore, petitioner is constrained to approach this Court and filed the present writ petition.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home filed counter affidavit and submitted that petitioner made an application on 18.07.2022 to respondent No.2 stating that he has life threat from various persons and sought for Arms License. After receipt 3 of application, respondent No.2 called for report from Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police Station. The Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police Station, conducted enquiry and submitted his report vide No.221/K1/Cyb/2022 dated 16.09.2022 through Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kukatpally Division, in which he stated that petitioner has no threat perception, hence, his case cannot be recommended for grant of Arms License. Basing on the said report, respondent No.2 forwarded petitioner's application to respondent No.1 vide Rc.No.A1/20/620/Cyb/2022 dated 09.11.2022 stating that petitioner is involved in multiple crimes, however, he is acquitted in one case (Crime No.36 of 2004 of Machilipatnam Police Station) and other (Crime No.745 of 2018 of Kukatpally Police Station) was compromised and there is no specific threat and he is not recommended for grant of fresh Arms License.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home further submitted that basing on the said recommendation of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 issued impugned memo vide No.11735/Arms/2022 dated 24.11.2022 rejecting the application of 4 petitioner for grant of Arms License. He further submitted that as per Rule 12(3) of the Arms Rules, 2016, the licensing authority basing on the Police report and on their own assessment may consider the applications of the following categories of persons for grant of Arms License, which are hereunder:
(a) "any person who by the very nature of his business, profession, job or otherwise has genuine requirement to protect his life and/or property; or
(b) any dedicated sports person being active member for the last two years, of a shooting club or a rifle association, licensed under these rules and who wants to pursue sport shooting for target practice in a structured learning process; or
(c) any person in service or having served in the Defence Forces, Central Armed Police Forces or the State Police Force and has genuine requirement to protect his life and/or property."
As the enquiry revealed that petitioner has no threat perception; also he did not satisfy any of the above conditions specified by the Government of India, the application of the petitioner was rejected.
7. The impugned memo dated 24.11.2022 reads as under:
"5. The Government after careful examination of the matter, hereby reject the request of Sri G. Vasudevudu 5 S/o. G. Venkateshwar Rao, for grant of Fresh Arms License to possess one weapon i.e., Hand Gun (Revolver/Pistol) with Area Validity to "All India" for Self Protection, as he could not satisfy any one condition specified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs mentioned above."
8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that opportunity of personal hearing was not given to the petitioner before the impugned memo was issued. The application of the petitioner was not properly enquired into and thus, there is violation of principles of natural justice.
9. As it is evident from the record that opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner before the impugned memo was issued, the same is liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned memo vide No.11735/Arms/2022 dated 24.11.2022 issued by respondent No.1. Consequently, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner dated 18.07.2022 for grant of Arms License, by conducting enquiry and 6 giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass orders, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.
_______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J July 25, 2024 MS