IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 23113 of 2009 Between: Routhu Venkateswara Rao ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad and 5 others. .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 23113 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner is having an Arm Licence bearing No.222/1 RJY for revolver. The said licence was renewed on 16-10-2007 and it is valid up to 31-12-2009. It appears the respondents 4 to 6, who were closely related to the petitioner, gave a complaint to the 3rd respondent-Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada, stating that they have a life threat from the petitioner. The 3rd respondent forwarded the complaint to the 2nd respondent-District Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada. In those circumstances, the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice dated 16-10-2009 to the petitioner to submit his explanation within 7days from the date of receipt of notice. To the surprise of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent, without indicating any reasons, issued orders suspending licence of the petitioner, exercising the powers conferred under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act (for short ‘the Act’). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondent No.2. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondents-authorities having issued a show cause notice directing the petitioner to offer his explanation and without waiting for the explanation to be given by the petitioner, ought not to have suspended the said licence pending enquiry and further, the said suspension is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 (3) of the Act. 4. It is true that the show cause notice as well as the order of suspension, which is impugned in this writ petition, are even dated, but from that, it cannot be said that the respondents acted without jurisdiction. However, as it is the apprehension of the petitioner that the licence may be seized at any moment of time, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent not to seize the petitioner’s weapon pending enquiry into the allegation leveled against him. 5. As the show cause notice has already been issued, the petitioner is hereby directed to submit his explanation within a period of two weeks from today, and on receipt of the same, the 3rd respondent shall hold an enquiry and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of six weeks. Till such time, the weapon in question shall not be seized. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ October 28, 2009 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/o. kvr