IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7308 of 2008 Between: G. Venugopal S/o. Late G. Venkatanna Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District. 3 The Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 16-08-2007 passed by respondent No.2, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, and the Rules made there under. The petitioner applied for a gun license (Arms License) in the year 1991, and he was granted license bearing No.14/91, which was renewed from time to time. The renewal last made was to expire on 10-04-2007. On the eve of expiry of the license, the petitioner made application on 07-04-2007 to respondent No.2 for renewal of the said license. By order dated 16-08- 2007, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, respondent No.2 purported to cancel the petitioner’s license and permitted the petitioner to sell the weapon to a valid license holder/authorized armed license dealer. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. A perusal of the impugned order shows that on the basis of report dated 07-07-2007 of respondent No.3, who allegedly did not recommend renewal of license, the impugned order is passed. It is interesting to notice that the said order has been passed on the application of the petitioner for renewal of license. On the date of the passing of the impugned order, the petitioner’s license had expired, if the averments contained in the affidavit are taken as correct. Therefore, the question of cancelling a license, whose validity expired, does not arise, and the impugned order, which purported to cancel the petitioner’s arms license, cannot be countenanced in law. This apart, I am in agreement with the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the sole basis for passing the impugned order is alleged report dated 07-07-2007 of respondent No.3. In the impugned order, it is not stated that a copy of the said report has been supplied to the petitioner and that he was given an opportunity of making his representation against its contents. The impugned order is, therefore, passed on a report, which was not communicated to the petitioner. The principles of natural justice require that before any adverse material is sought to be relied upon any person, he shall be made known the contents of such material to enable him to give effective explanation. Failure of respondent No.2 to supply a copy of the report, thus, vitiates the order passed by her. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of license, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.Nos.9604 and 9605 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are also dismissed. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 3rd April, 2008 lur