IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 10217 of 2005 Between: S. Vijay Bhaskar Reddy S/o. Late Ram Reddy R/o. Jallapur (V), Manopad Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, Mahaboobnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar District, Mahaboobnagar. 2 The District Collector and Magistrate, Mahaboobnagar District, Mahaboobnagar. 3 The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Manopad, Mahaboobnagar District. 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Prl. Secretary, Home Department, .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to return the PISTOL NO. 765 which is in the custody of 3rd respondent forthwith to enable the petitioner to produce the same before 1st respondent or in the alternatively direct the respondents to pay the cost of Rs. 3/- Lakhs of weapon as per the present market value in order to compensate the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: R.M.RAMALINGESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER Petitioner seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to return the Pistol No.765 which is in the custody of 3rd respondent forthwith to enable the petitioner to produce the same before the 1st respondent or in the alternatively direct the respondents to pay the cost of the weapon i.e., Rs.3,00,000/- as per the present market value in order to compensate the same. It is stated that the petitioner is doing contract works in Transport apart from agriculture in the village and a weapon is required in respect of the nature of the contract business. He has applied for arm’s licence to the first respondent- Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar and accordingly, after conducting enquiry with regard to antecedents and genuineness, licence was granted to the petitioner. It is further stated that the father of the petitioner also possessed a weapon (pistol) under valid licence. While his father was alive, he deposited his Pistol No.765 on 7.10.1994 with the 3rd respondent-Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Manopad, Mahaboobnagar District under valid receipt. Since then, the weapon was lying with the 3rd respondent and his father made several representations to return the same and ultimately died on 15.5.2003. Since the petitioner also obtained the licence, he requested the 2nd and 3rd respondent to return his father’s weapon since he is entitled to get the same. It is further stated that on 1.12.2004, he made a representation to the 2nd respondent-District Collector and Magistrate, Mahaboobnagar District, Mahaboobnagar. But, the same was not returned. It is also stated that the present market value of the said weapon is more than Rs.3,00,000/- and the respondents informed that the weapon is not found traced and therefore, he is not entitled for cost of the said weapon. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating that in view of the general elections during 1994 as per the directions of the Election Commission, the private weapon i.e., 32 Bore Revolver belonging to S.Ram Reddy, father of the petitioner resident of Jallapur of Manopad Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District was deposited in P.S.Manopad on 8.10.1994 and the same was later deposited in AR Head Quarters Mahabubnagar through Circle Inspector Office, Alampur. After completion of the elections, the said wapon was returned to Alampur PS through issue voucher No.62/96 on 5.6.1996 through HC 473 Shaik Hussain and other PCs of Alampur in order to return the same to the owner of the said weapon. But, it was not returned so, and it was kept in PS Alampur and the same was later found missing. It is stated that as per the records available in the police station Alampur, it was handed over by M.Fazar-ur-Rahaman, the then Sub Inspector of Police to HC 1204 Maddileri of Police Station Alampur on his transfer. It is also stated that enquiries have been conducted with regard to fixing up responsibility and in fact, a case in Cr.No.45 of 2005 was also registered under the head weapon missing. I am of the opinion that fixing up the responsibility is within the domain of the authorities for taking appropriate action against the officers/public servants for dereliction of their duties. But, that cannot be a reason for not paying the compensation to the petitioner. There is no dispute as to the deposit of the weapon in question and about the petitioner as the son of the depositor of the weapon. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to succeed to the weapon of his father who was having a valid licence and thereby, he is entitled for return of the weapon of his father or for its cost. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is permitted to make a representation before respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and on making such representation, the respondents shall consider and pass appropriate orders either for payment of cost of the missing weapon or for supply of similar weapon to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _________ 19-06-2008 rkk .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar District, Mahaboobnagar. 2 The District Collector and Magistrate, Mahaboobnagar District, Mahaboobnagar. 3 The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Manopad, Mahaboobnagar District. 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Prl. Secretary, Home Department, 5.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}