THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 592 of 2008 O R D E R: It appears, petitioner is a proprietary firm, represented by its Managing Partner S.P. Ranga Reddy, dealing in business of purchase and sale of arms. According to petitioner, he had a valid license for conducting the said business and it was valid up to 31.12.1990. Thereafter, petitioner had applied for renewal of license but the same was not considered. Therefore, petitioner was constrained to file W.P. No. 2984 of 1991 before this Court. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 7.3.1991 directing the respondents to consider the application of petitioner for renewal. However, renewal was rejected on the ground that two offences relating to arms dealing were pending against him in the States of Karnataka and Hyderabad. According to the petitioner, both those cases ended in honourable acquittal and, therefore, he filed an application for renewal of license on 3.5.2006. While the said application was pending, he filed a petition under the Right to Information Act, seeking particulars of the decision taken and status of the application filed by him. The said application was received by 1st respondent on 27.7.2007 and immediately it was replied saying that the order was passed rejecting the application as per Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, which was received by the petitioner on 11.10.2007. Hence, this writ petition. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The impugned order dated 18.9.2007 reads as under: “Government have examined the request of Sri S.P. Ranga Reddy, Managing Partner, M/s. National Arms Stores for renewal of Armory licence in detail and rejected the same as per Section 17(3)(b) of Arms Act, 1959”. As could be seen, the impugned order does not give any details, except the Section under which the licence was rejected, as to why the case of the petitioner was not considered. According to petitioner, even Section 17(3)(b) of Arms Act, 1959 has no application to the case of the petitioner. Be that as it may, since the application was not properly considered and the principles of natural justice were not followed, I am of the opinion, the impugned order dated 18.9.2007 is liable to be set aside on this ground alone and it is accordingly set aside. Petitioner is directed to file a fresh application, after completing all the formalities, as per law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. On filing such application, respondents shall consider the same, as per law, and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner, uninfluenced by pendency of earlier cases. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 22-11-2010. MVB.