IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.20767 of 2008 Between: G.Shankar S/o.G.Jangaiah R/o.T.R.T-126, Jawahar Nagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Hyderabad. 3 The Inspector of Police, Chikkadpally Police Station, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the 1st respondent through his Memo No.HC-3/Arms/313/Chikkadpally/2008, dt. 11.3.2008 refusing to renewal of the petitioner's Arms Licence No. 313/Chikkadpally and for extension of period to purchase the weapon i.e., one N.P. Bore Revolver / Pistol is as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the report of the 3rd respondent, dt. 17.01.2008 and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to renew the petitioner's Arms Licence No.313/Chikkadpally and extend the time to purchase the weapon one N.P. Bore Revolver / Pistal in pursuance of the report sent by the 3rd respondent dt. 17.1.2008 by setting aside the impugned memo of the order passed by the 1st respondent dt. 11.3.2008 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.20767 of 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that he was granted Arms Licence No.313/Chikkadpally on 16-11-2005, and he was permitted to purchase .32 Revolver and the same had been renewed upto 15-11-2006. However, he tried to purchase .32 Revolver, but it was not available in the market and in the mean time, his arms licence expired. Therefore, he made an application before the 2nd respondent on 02-01-2008 for renewal of arms licence and also for extension of period to purchase the weapon. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter, dated 03-01-2008, to the 3rd respondent asking him to submit a report for considering the renewal of licence No.313/Chikkadpally beyond 15-11-2006 and for extension of time to purchase the weapon. The 3rd respondent after conducting enquiry submitted his report to the 2nd respondent on 17-01-2008 requesting to renew the arms licence and extend the time to purchase the weapon, as the petitioner has not come to any adverse notice or involved in any criminal case. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent sent the said report to the 1st respondent, but, however, the 1st respondent, through order, dated 11-03- 2008, without considering the enquiry report submitted by the 3rd respondent, refused to renew the arms licence and also to extend the time to purchase the weapon. Hence, the writ petition. As per Rule 52(ii) of the Arms Rules, 1962, if the licencee failed to acquire and produce the weapon within the extended period, the licence shall cease to be in force. A perusal of the impugned order, dated 11-03-2008, goes to show that the application purported to have been filed by the petitioner on 02-01- 2008 was rejected on the ground that though the period was extended earlier, the petitioner failed to purchase and produce the weapon. However, it appears that the report submitted by the 3rd respondent has not been placed before the 1st respondent. Further, a perusal of the report submitted by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent, dated 17-01-2008, categorically indicates that as per the records of P.S.Chikkadpally, the petitioner has not come to any adverse notice or involved in any criminal case and, therefore, the 3rd respondent requested the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of arms licence and also for extension of time to purchase the weapon. Under those circumstances, the 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner, dated 02-01-2008, keeping in view the report of the 3rd respondent, dated 17-01-2008, which was submitted to the 2nd respondent, and pass appropriate orders, as per law, after putting the petitioner on notice and hearing him personally. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 20-11-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}