HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.5260 of 2008 Date: October 24, 2011 Between: Challa Bhageerath Reddy, S/o.Ch.Rama Krishna Reddy, Aged about 31 years, Flat No.102, Metro Residency, Raj Bhavan Road, Panjagutta, Hyderabad … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, and another … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 26.12.2007 passed in proceedings No.HW- 3/Arms/1406/Panjagutta/2007, by the 1st respondent- Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, by which the arms licence bearing No.1406/Panjagutta, dated 02.11.2001, granted to the petitioner, is cancelled with a direction to dispose of the weapons to any authorised arms dealers or any valid arms licence holder and submit the sale receipts/documents before the respondents. Facts as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are: The petitioner is a permanent resident of Owk Mandal of Kurnool District and also resides in Hyderabad in Flat No.102, Metro Residency, Raj Bhavan Road, Panjagutta. He is the President of Youth Congress of Kurnool District, his father has been a Member of Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, from the Congress (I) Party for a period of last three terms, one of his uncles is a Sarpanch of Owk Mandal and another uncle is the Mandal President. The area of residence of the petitioner, i.e. Owk Mandal of Kurnool District, is highly faction-ridden and naxal-affected. In view of political faction and animosity against the petitioner and his family members, there is a threat to his life and as a security measure, he applied for grant of arms licence in the year 2001 and the licencing authority, after conducting enquiry, granted arms licence No.1406/Panjagutta, on 02.11.2001. As per the said licence, he was permitted to hold and carry two weapons, i.e. (i) NPB 0.32 Pistol No.95063 and (ii).3A15 NPB Rifle No.AB-058246 and the said licence is being renewed from time to time. On the intervening night of 31.12.2006 and 01.01.2007, the petitioner after celebrating the New Year’s Eve at Durgam Cheruvu in Hyderabad with his friends, on the way back, stopped for attending calls of nature and in the process, the pistol of the petitioner, which was kept in his waist upholster, went off accidentally and a bullet thereof hit the ground, richotted and hit the thigh of his close associate and friend Mr.Y.Srinivasa Reddy who was standing beside him. Thereafter, the injured, Mr.Y.Srinivasa Reddy, was admitted in Yashoda Hospital and a case in Cr.No.03/2007 under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 was registered against the petitioner in Police Station, Jubilee Hills. With regard to the said incident, the petitioner was issued show-cause notice dated 11.05.2007 vide proceedings No.HW-3/Arms/1406/Panjagutta/07, by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Police, to show cause why a report should not be sent against him to higher officers recommending for cancellation of his arms licence, alleging that he was negligent in handling the weapon thereby causing grievous hurt to Mr.Y.Srinivasa Reddy, the informant in Cr.No.03/2007. The petitioner submitted detailed explanation to the said show-cause notice on 12.06.2007 denying the allegations made against him and stated that the said incident happened accidentally and the informant/complainant in the crime in question is his close associate and friend and he was taken to hospital and subsequently on his statement, the case was compromised in Lok Adalath. Pleading so, he has requested to drop the proceedings and assured the respondents that he will be careful in future and will not give scope for such incidents. Referring to the show- cause notice and the explanation offered by the petitioner, based on the recommendations of the 2nd respondent, the impugned order is passed canceling the arms licence of the petitioner alleging that he has handled his pistol negligently, which resulted in grievous hurt to the informant/complainant, Mr.Y.Srinivasa Reddy in Cr.No.03/2007. The 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Hyderabad, has filed counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was granted arms licence in the year 2001 and he was holding two weapons and the area of operation of such licence is within the State of Andhra Pradesh. While stating that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, with reference to the incident that occurred on the intervening night of 31.12.2006 and 01.01.2007, it is stated that on the statement of Mr.Y.Srinivasa Reddy, Cr.No.03/2007 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 338 IPC and 30 of Arms Act, 1959. While referring to the show- cause notice issued to the petitioner and the explanation filed by him in response thereof, it is stated that recommendations have been sent for cancellation of the arms licence of the petitioner in view of his involvement in a criminal case and based on the same, the impugned order is passed by the licencing authority, i.e. the 1st respondent-Commissioner of Police, canceling the arms licence of the petitioner. While pleading that the impugned order, canceling the arms licence of the petitioner is in accordance with law, as he acted negligently and carelessly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard Sri V.Pattabhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents-Police. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order, canceling the arms licence of the petitioner, is passed without assigning valid reasons and even as per the contents of the complaint in Cr.No.03/2007, the final report filed in the said crime and the award passed by the Lok Adalath, make it abundantly clear that the incident in question is an accidental one; therefore, the arms licence granted to the petitioner under the Arms Act, 1959 should not have been cancelled with reference to the said incident. It is further submitted that in absence of any intentional misuse of the weapon, mere registration of a case in Cr.No.03/2007, which ended in acquittal of the petitioner, should not have been the ground to cancel the licence granted to the petitioner. He would also submit that in spite of valid explanation offered by the petitioner, the impugned order is passed in a routine manner, basing on the recommendations made by the 2nd respondent who is not the licencing authority. Finally, it is urged by the learned counsel that as the petitioner is politically active, belonging to Congress (I) Party, and he hails from a faction-ridden and highly naxal- affected area, his arms licence should not have been cancelled on the grounds as stated in the impugned order. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that once an arms licence is issued, it is the duty of the licence-holder to handle the weapon carefully and in view of the negligent handling of the weapon by the petitioner, Mr.Y.Srinivasa Reddy, the informant in Cr.No.03/2007, was injured. He further submits that in view of mishandling of the pistol by the petitioner; by issuing opportunity of hearing, the impugned order is passed and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. He would further submit that though there is a remedy of appeal available to the petitioner by way of approaching the Government, he has not availed the same and invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, I have perused the impugned order, show-cause notice issued to the petitioner on 11.05.2007 and the explanation offered by him in response thereof on 12.06.2007 and also other material placed on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the President of the Youth Congress (I) Party of Kurnool District, his father is a Member of Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, from the Congress (I) Party and his uncles too are in the same party, working as Sarpanch of Owk Mandal and Mandal President respectively. Petitioner claims that in view of political faction and naxal movement in the District, there is a threat to his life; as such on his making an application, after conducting necessary enquiry and in view of the threat perception, he was granted arms licence in the year 2001 by the licencing authority. Though he was granted licence in the year 2001, it appears, there is no occasion of mishandling of the weapons at any point of time, even as per the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. Since the year 2001 onwards, his licence was being renewed from time to time. With reference to the incident that had taken place on the intervening night of 31.12.2006 and 01.01.2007, a case was registered in Cr.No.03/2007 under Sections 338 IPC and 30 of Arms Act, 1959, in Police Station, Jubilee Hills. I have perused the F.I.R. in the said crime wherein it is clearly stated that the pistol which was held by the petitioner accidentally went off, one of the bullets hit the ground, richotted and hit the thigh of the close associate of the petitioner Mr.Y.Srinivasa Reddy, the informant/complainant. Even in the final report filed in the said crime, no motive is alleged on the part of the petitioner. Further, it is to be noticed that when the matter was referred to Lok Adalath, the petitioner was acquitted in view of the statement given by the said Mr.Y.Srinivasa Reddy that the incident in question had taken place accidentally. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, which empowers the licencing authority to suspend or revoke the licence in the event of conviction of licence-holder under the provisions of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the Commissioner of Police is the licencing authority in the City of Hyderabad. A perusal of the show-cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Police would indicate that the petitioner has been asked to show cause as to why recommendation should not be made to the higher officers to cancel the licence. In fact, when the licencing authority is the 1st respondent- Commissioner, it is strange as to how the 2nd respondent- Deputy Commissioner could issue the show-cause for cancellation of licence. It is true, as per the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, every renewal of licence is to be considered as a fresh grant and even for fresh grant of licence, a report is to be called for from the Police Officer concerned. Ultimately, it is the licencing authority that has to consider the matter independently, but without any show-cause notice being issued by the licencing authority, no order could have been passed canceling the arms licence of the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order would make it clear that in view of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, the same has been passed canceling the licence. No doubt, involvement of licence-holder in any crime can be taken into consideration while granting or refusing licence under the Arms Act, but the nature of crime and accusation made against the accused in the crime shall also be taken into account. In this case, it cannot be said that the petitioner has intentionally misused the weapon and the close associate of the petitioner Mr.Y.Srinivasa Reddy, who is injured in the incident, has himself given a statement that the incident happened accidentally and there is no motive behind it. Merely because a crime is registered, that by itself is no ground to revoke the licence granted under the Arms Act, 1959, unless a finding is recorded that any renewal/grant of licence would be contrary to public interest. Without recording such finding, the licence of the petitioner ought not to have been cancelled on the ground that a case is registered against him. In the present case, I am of the view that the licencing authority has not considered the matter in a proper perspective and merely passed the impugned order canceling the arms licence of the petitioner only on an allegation that he is involved in a crime and acted negligently in handling the weapon. When investigation has been made and a conclusion is arrived at that the pistol went off accidentally and there is no motive behind it, the impugned order could not have been passed canceling the arms licence of the petitioner, solely relying on the recommendations of the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Police, who is not the licencing authority. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, the order dated 26.12.2007 passed in proceedings No.HW- 3/Arms/1406/Panjagutta/2007, by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, is set-aside. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider for restoration of the arms licence of the petitioner by taking into account the present threat perception and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) October 24, 2011 MRR