THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 732 OF 2010 Dated: 12.10.2011 Between : Joshi Jagdish Prasad … Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh and another … Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 732 OF 2010 ORDER: This Court disposed of Writ Petition No.14849 of 2006 by order dated 18.11.2008 with directions as under: “ For the aforesaid reasons, while setting aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2006, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make an appropriate application for renewal of his licence within four weeks from today. On receipt of such application, the respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of application for renewal.” It is alleged that though the petitioner made an application in terms of the above order, the respondents failed to consider the same. Hence, the present contempt case. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. The material available on record shows that the plea of the petitioner that he made the application on 11.12.2008 was denied by the respondents and therefore, he made a fresh application on 19.10.2010. Having considered the same, the 1st respondent by order dated 01.12.2010 rejected the petitioner’s request for renewal of Arms Licence on the ground that the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone, revealed that the petitioner was not residing in the given address for the last one year and the present address of the individual was not known. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the petitioner is not residing at his original residence. However, it is stated that in the year 2009, the petitioner had shifted his residence and therefore, while making the fresh application dated 19.10.2010, he had submitted necessary documents in proof of his changed address. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without making any enquiry as to the change of residence of petitioner, the order dated 01.12.2010 came to be passed and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. A perusal of the order dated 01.12.2010 itself shows that no enquiry was made with regard to the changed address furnished by the petitioner. Hence, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter requires reconsideration. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit the necessary documents to establish his present residence within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such documents, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law without having regard to the rejection order dated 01.12.2010. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 12.10.2011 Ivd