The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.32028 of 2011 Date: 05-12-2011 Between: K.Chinnappa Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, YSR District, Kadapa and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.I.Koti Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1:GP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.2: GP for Home The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents, in renewing the petitioner’s arms license for a further period of two years, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to forthwith renew the arms license of the petitioner. I have heard Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.1. The petitioner held an arms license in respect of NPB Revolver/NPB Pistol. The license was granted on 02-07- 2007 and the same was valid up to 27-10-2010. On the eve of expiry of the said license period, the petitioner has applied, to respondent No.1, for renewal of the arms license for a further period of two years, on 07-10-2010, by paying requisite challan. The petitioner pleaded that respondent No.1 has invited a report from respondent No.2 and that, pending disposal of his application for renewal, he has deposited the pistol with A.P.Armoury, Hyderabad, for safe custody on 20-01- 2011. The grievance of the petitioner is that, even though his application for renewal is pending for the last one year, no decision is taken by respondent No.1 thereon. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on written instructions, submitted that respondent No.2 has submitted a report to respondent No.1 wherein he has not recommended renewal and that the petitioner’s application for renewal has not yet been disposed of by respondent No.1. It is trite that every application for renewal needs to be disposed of by the competent authority. The report of respondent No.2 will be used as a guide by the competent authority to dispose of such renewal application. Even if the report submitted by respondent No.2 is against the petitioner, respondent No.1 is bound to take a decision so that if the petitioner feels aggrieved by such decision, he shall be entitled to avail further remedies in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any justiﬁcation in respondent No.1 not disposing of the renewal application of the petitioner. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the petitioner’s renewal application within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner immediately thereafter. As a sequel, WPMP.No.39757 of 2011, ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 5th December, 2011 Note: CC by 12-12-2011. (B/o) LUR