HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.2918 of 2010 Date: July 15, 2010 Between: Puste Prahalad Rao, S/o. late Adavaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ: business, R/o.H.No.16-1-486/B/4, Saidabad, Hyderabad … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and two others … Respondents Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents-Police in not renewing Arms Licence bearing No.47/Home/2000, in spite of his making applications dated 03-03-2007 and 26-03-2007 as illegal and arbitrary and a consequential direction to renew the said licence in his favour. The petitioner, who claims to be doing business in real-estate, was granted licence to hold .32 NP Bore Revolver No.54/85 with All-India validity, vide licence bearing No.47/Home/2000. It is stated that since the petitioner is involved in business, there is a threat to his life and thus he obtained the said licence and the same expired on 30-03-2007. It is the grievance of the petitioner that before the expiry of the said licence, though he made application dated 03-03-2007 and also further application dated 26-03-2007 to the respondents seeking renewal for the period beyond 30-03-2007, the said licence has not been renewed and a show-cause notice dated 15-04-2008 was issued to him to explain why the licence granted to him should not be cancelled on the ground that he was involved in some criminal cases. It is stated that in reply to the said show- cause notice, the petitioner filed explanation on 26-04- 2010, but no order has been passed thereon and a further memo dated 06-01-2009 has been issued to him on similar lines, for which also he submitted his explanation on 06-04-2009. Though no counter-affidavit is filed, on instructions, it is submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents that the applications filed by the petitioner for renewal of Arms licence are still pending consideration and no orders have yet been passed. In this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted licence to hold a gun, vide licence bearing No.47/Home/2000, on his request. The said licence expired by 30-03-2007 and the petitioner, before expiry of the licence, requested the respondents-Police to renew the same beyond 30-03-2007 and by show-cause notice dated 15-04-2008, respondents asked the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why the licence granted to him should not be cancelled, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation. In those circumstances, the competent authority, i.e. the second respondent- Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad ought to have taken a decision, either renewing or rejecting to renew the licence granted to the petitioner by recording reasons, without keeping the matter pending. In view of the pendency of the applications of the petitioner for grant of licence before the competent authority, without recording any finding on the claim of the petitioner for renewal of the said licence, I dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent- Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, to consider the applications of the petitioner seeking renewal of Arms Licence bearing No.47/Home/2000 and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) July 15, 2010 MRR