THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18657 of 2008 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, petitioners have questioned orders, dated 23.06.2008 passed by the second respondent – District Collector, Chittoor, in separate proceedings bearing Nos.Elpari, SR.No.21/CHP/07; Elpari, SR.No.20/CHP/07 and Elpari, SR.No.22/CHP/07, refusing to renew their gun licenses. Petitioners were holding licenses to possess an arm as contemplated under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’). At the same time, the license of the first petitioner was renewed up to 31.12.1998 and petitioners 2 and 3 up to 31.03.2007. When they have applied for renewal, the second respondent called for a report from the third respondent -Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, who in turn, submitted the same on 22.04.2008 stating that as there is no threat to the lives of the petitioners, there is no necessity to hold the gun licenses by them. Based on the aforesaid report, the second respondent rejected their claim for renewal of licenses, by the impugned orders. In this Writ Petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the petitioners were holding agricultural lands, they were given licenses for crop protection. It is contended that in the absence of any incident of misuse of their licenses and further, without any change of circumstances and without assigning any valid reason, the impugned orders were passed rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The second respondent filed a counter-affidavit. In the said counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations of the petitioners, by referring to the proceedings under which the gun licenses were issued to them, it is stated that on receipt of the applications for renewal, a report was called for from the third respondent, who in turn, submitted the same to the second respondent stating that there is no threat to the lives of the petitioners and they are not capable or good enough to safeguard and possess the arm. Based on the said report, the impugned orders were passed. It is pleaded that the impugned action of the second respondent is purely administrative in nature as such there is no need to issue notice to the petitioners before rejecting their request for renewal of their licenses. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents, and perused the orders and also the relevant provisions of the Arms Act, 1959. Section 13 of the Act deals with grant of licenses, Section 14 deals with refusal of licenses and Section 15 deals with duration and renewal of licenses. As per Section 13 of the Act, on receipt of an application, the licensing authority shall call for a report of the officer in charge of the nearest Police Station. On receipt of such report, the licensing authority after considering the same, shall grant the license or refuse to grant the same. As per Section 15(3) of the Act, for every application for renewal of license, the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 shall apply to such renewal as they apply for grant of fresh license. Initially, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the arm licenses were granted to the petitioners for crop protection as such it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to renew their licenses under Section 15(3) of the Act. But, when the matter is taken up, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the licenses were issued to the petitioners in Form-III, which is the license provided for self-protection, and that for muzzle loading guns, licenses are to be given under Form IV annexed to the Arms Rules, 1962. As much as the licenses of the petitioners were issued in Form-III, it is clear that they were issued only for the purpose of self- protection. When an application is filed for renewal, it is open for the licensing authority to call for a report from the police officer, in terms of Section 15(3) of the Act. Having assessed the threat perception of the applicants, the licensing authority considers the request for renewal of arm license based on the report sent by the Police Officer. In this case, when the petitioners have applied for renewal of their licenses, the second respondent called for a report from the third respondent, who in turn, submitted the same stating that there is no threat to the lives of the petitioners, and based on such report, he rejected the claim of the petitioners for renewal of their licenses. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there is no change in the circumstances from the stage when the licenses were granted to the petitioners to that of the stage when the second respondent refused to grant renewal of their licenses, by the impugned orders. From the scheme of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Rules made there under, it is clear that every applicant is not automatically entitled for grant of license under the Act, unless the authorities are satisfied with regard to threat perception to the applicant and that no one can claim as a matter of right to have the license under the provisions of the Act. During the course of hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents produced before this Court a record containing the report of the third respondent. A perusal of the said report indicates that the third respondent sent a comprehensive report for about 24 applicants and he stated therein that there is no threat perception to the petitioners and they are not capable of safeguarding the weapons, and at the same time, he recommended for renewal of licenses of others on assessing their threat perception. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that without assigning any valid reason, the request of the petitioners for renewal of their licenses was rejected. Even at the stage of renewal of license, it is always open for the licensing authority to assess the threat perception by taking into account the report submitted by the Police Officer concerned, whether to grant renewal of license or not. In view of the reasons stated in the impugned orders and having regard to the report submitted by the third respondent holding that there is no threat perception to the petitioners for grant of renewal of their licenses, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders, which warrants interference in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th OCTOBER, 2011. kvni