IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25303 of 2004 Between: S. Subhan, S/o. S. Sheriff, Chittoor Dist. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector and Magistrate, Chittoor Dist. 2 The District Revenue Officer and Addl. District Magistrate, 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer Chittoor Dist. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the proceedings Dist No. (C4)/558/2003, dt.4-8-2003 of the respondents 1 and 2 as being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice, apart form being contrary to the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and consequently set-aside the same by further directing the respondents to restore the arms licence of the petitioner bearing NoA/497/588/92. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. P. Venkata Rao Counsel for respondents: G.P., Revenue The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed challenging proceedings D.Dis.No. (C4)/558/2003, dated 04-08-2003, issued by the respondents, by which the claim of the petitioner for renewal of arms licence, which was granted to him vide licence No.A/497/588/92, was rejected. 2. The petitioner was initially granted arms licence in the year 1992, which was valid upto 31-12-2002. Thereafter, he submitted application for renewal of the same for the period beyond 31-12-2002. By the impugned proceedings, the licencing authority, i.e. the Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor, rejected renewal of the licence on the ground that the petitioner is an ordinary citizen and there is no necessity for him to carry a revolver for self- protection. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is doing business in granite quarries and also manufacturing tractor trailors in Chittoor town in the name of Hindustan Trailor Works. It is his case that as he carries cash for payment to labour and for purchase of material and tools, there is every threat to his life from antisocial elements; as such he needs an arms licence for possessing a weapon for self-protection. 3. When the matter had come up on 08-06-2009, learned Government Pleader for Home was asked to produce the original record so as to know whether any enquiry was conducted before rejecting renewal of the arms licence of the petitioner. 4. The grant of arms licence and its renewal is governed by statutory provisions under Arms Act, 1959 and the rules framed thereunder. Chapter III of the said Act deals with the provisions relating to licences. Grant of licences is governed by Section 13, refusal of licences is governed by Section 14 and duration and renewal of licences is governed by Section 15. 5. From a reading of Section 13 of the Act, it is clear that for grant of licence, the licencing authority must be satisfied to the effect that the person by whom the licence is required has a good reason for obtaining the same. By virtue of Section 15(3) of the Act, the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 are made applicable for renewal of a licence. From a perusal of the file relating to the grant and renewal of the arms licence, on the application submitted by the petitioner, a report is called for by the licencing authority, i.e. the District Collector, Chittoor, from the Revenue Divisional Officer, who enquired into the matter and reported to the District Collector vide report dated 26-08-2003. In the said report, it is stated that the petitioner is running an engineering workshop in the name of M/s. Hindustan Trailor Works, manufacturing tractor trailors. The said report discloses that the petitioner is an ordinary businessman and there is no threat to him from any corner so as to seek licence for possession of a weapon. In view of the said report, the impugned proceedings are issued. 6. It is submitted by Sri P. Venkat Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was possessing an arms licence from the year 1992 and there are no changed circumstances so as to deny renewal. It is further submitted that as much as the petitioner is doing business in granite quarries and manufacturing tractor trailors, in view of business rivalry, to protect himself, there is every need for him to possess a weapon. With reference to the said submission of the learned counsel, it is to be noted that merely because the petitioner had possessed licence from 1992 onwards, that, by itself, will not entitle the petitioner to get the said licence renewed automatically. From a reading of the provisions under Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Arms Act, 1959, it is clear that the licencing authority must be satisfied, before grant of licence, that there exists a good reason for obtaining the same. Every applicant whoever seeks licence to possess a weapon is not entitled to be granted licence as a matter of course unless a valid reason is shown to possess a licence. Merely because the petitioner held an arms licence from 1992, which was renewed from time to time, that by itself is no ground to seek renewal of licence automatically. By virtue of Section 15(3) of the Act, for renewal of licence, the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 will apply. Therefore, renewal is almost like grant of a fresh licence. In that view of the matter, the licencing authority is vested with the power to refuse renewal of licence by assessing threat perception. In this case, from the report received by the District Collector, Chittoor, from the Revenue Divisional Officer, it is clear that there is no threat to the petitioner; as such no reason exists for renewal of the licence. Though it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is threat to the petitioner, it is to be seen that it is not for the petitioner to assess whether there is threat, but is for the licencing authority to assess the same. As much as valid reasons are recorded after conducting enquiry, I do not find any illegality to interfere with the impugned order. The application made by the petitioner and the report referred above discloses that the application of the petitioner was for seeking renewal of licence. But in the impugned order, it is loosely worded as cancellation of licence instead of rejection of renewal. As the licence period had already expired by the time the impugned order is passed, it is only to be construed as rejection of renewal. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. June 15, 2009 MRR ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP {MVK}