HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 16781 OF 2011 . DATED 12th AUGUST,2011. BETWEEN Kolan Narasimha Reddy …Petitioner And The State of AP, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderbad and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 16781 of 2011 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner calls in question the order dated 21.4.2011 vide which the second respondent on the recommendations of the third and fourth respondents, rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of arms license. It is stated that the petitioner is a resident of Nizampet village of Ranga Reddy District. Questioning the illegal assignments made to the rich people and non locals, other than the freedom fighters and ex-servicemen, the petitioner along with the villagers brought to the notice of the higher officials of the Revenue Department. As no action has been initiated in regard thereto, the petitioner approached this Court by way of Public Interest Litigations, which were registered as Writ Petition Nos. 28508 of 2007, 6175 of 2008, 9364 of 2008, 24194 of 2008, 10169 of 2007, 3405 of 2010, 12228 of 2010, 15452 of 2010, and W.P. 33880 of 2010. The petitioner also instituted a suit in O.S.No. 2146 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. It is the grievance of the petitioner that due to his vehement efforts in trying to protect the government lands, some of the respondent officials and land mafia indirectly threatened him with dire consequences and cautioned him not to make any such further complaints. It is his complaint that pursuant to the aforesaid continued vigorous efforts to protect the government lands, his new TATA SAFARI four- wheeler vehicle was stolen by the unidentified persons and later the police personnel noticed that it was set to ablaze on 21.10.2009. In the light of these circumstances, expecting threat to his life and liberty as well as of his family members, the petitioner requested the respondent authorities either to provide him police security or alternatively to grant him an arms licence. The second respondent, after obtaining a report from the third and fourth respondents, rejected the request of the petitioner under the impugned order. Hence this Writ Petition. The Inspector of Police, KPHB Police Station, Cyberabad, the fourth respondent, filed a counter affidavit denying the allegation of threat to the life and liberty of the petitioner. He stated that upon receipt of the application of the petitioner on 7.1.2010 by the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, a report had been called for and accordingly a detailed report was submitted on 30.09.2010 stating that neither the petitioner has a farm house so as to protect his life from any terrorists, dacoit-gangs and other anti-social elements nor his house is located in an isolated place so as to possess a weapon for self-protection. It is further stated in the said report that the petitioner is not facing any sort of threat to his life and liberty from any nook and corner and he is also not having any inimical terms with anybody in view of his business activities. It is also averred that the petitioner is staying in H.No.1-5/2, Nizampet village, which is located in the well settlers area. It is also pointed out that the order impugned is appealable and thus the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the Government against the impugned order and that without exhausting such remedy, the petitioner filed the present Writ petition, which therefore is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent without conducting a proper enquiry and without issuing any prior notice in the matter, based on the recommendations of the third and fourth respondents, rejected the request of the petitioner for issuance of an arms licence, which i s ex facie illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that while passing the impugned order, the second respondent failed to consider the statutory provisions under Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. He also contended that the subject matter of this case is covered by a judgment of this Court in Syed Afzal Mehdi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh {2010 ALT (4) 377}. He further argued that filing of a statutory remedy is not always an efficacious alternative remedy in all occasions. The learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents while supporting the impugned order contended that the petitioner has a statutory appellate remedy under Section 18 of the Act and without doing so, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limini. He also argued on merits that the impugned order passed is based on the recommendations of the third and fourth respondents and therefore the same does not warrant interference by this Court. Before going into the merits of the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, let us have a look at certain important provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 that govern the subject matter for effective adjudication of the issue involved in the present case. Section 3 of the Arms Act,1959 (‘the Act’ for brevity) prohibits acquisition, possession or carrying of any fire arm or ammunition without holding a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 4 provides for grant of licence for acquisition and possession of arms. Section 7 deals with prohibited arms and ammunition, which prohibits their acquisition, possession and carrying or sale, manufacture etc. without the authority of the Central Government. Section 13 postulates making an application for grant of a licence for any of the purposes mentioned in Chapter- II. Under this provision, after calling for report from the Officer-in- charge of the nearest police Station and considering the said report, the licensing authority is empowered either to grant the licence or refuse to grant the same under an order to be made in writing. Such an order shall be made after holding an enquiry by the licensing authority. Section 14 envisages that the licensing authority shall refuse to grant the licence under Sections 3, 4 or 5, where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition. A similar refusal shall be made in respect of other cases under Chapter- II, as envisaged in Section 14 (l) (b). Section 18 of the Act provides for filing of an appeal against such order refusing to grant an arms licence. It is apt to reproduce the same hereunder, which reads thus: “18 Appeals :(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the licensing authority refusing to grant a licence or varying the conditions of a licence or by an order of the licensing authority or the authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate, suspending or revoking a licence may prefer an appeal against that order to such authority (hereinafter referred to as the appellate authority) and within such period as may be prescribed: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order made by, or under the direction of, the Government. (2) No appeal shall be admitted if it is preferred after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor. Provided that an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor if the appellant satisfies the appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period. (3) The period prescribed for an appeal shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of Limitation Act, 1908, with respect to the computation to periods of limitation thereunder. (4) Every appeal under this section shall be made by a petition in writing and shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the reasons 'for the order appealed against where such statement has been furnished to the appellant and by such fee as may be prescribed. (5) In disposing of an appeal the appellate authority shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed: Provided that no appeal shall be disposed of unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (6) The order appealed against shall, unless the appellate authority conditionally or unconditionally directs otherwise, be in force pending the disposal of the appeal against such order. (7). Every order of the appellate authority confirming, modifying or reversing the order appealed against shall be final.” As per the above provision, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned rejection order, a statutory appellate remedy is provided therefor, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. However, the petitioner did not choose to avail the said statutory appellate remedy on the premise that filing of an appeal is not always an efficacious alternative remedy on all occasions. This Court cannot thus countenance the said contention of the petitioner in view of a well settled proposition of law that Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to be used for circumventing or short- circuiting statutory appellate remedies. In this regard, the observations of a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDAN NAGAR, WEST BENGAL v. DUNLOP INDIA LTD. [AIR 1985 SC 330] are apposite: “3. ………… Article 226 is not meant to short circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Art.226 of the Constitution. But then the court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged.” [Emphasis added] The hierarchy of statutory remedies provided under the Act of 1968 is essentially designed with a view to obtain an adjudication on factual issues by and before such authorities, so that purely legal issues, if any, would remain for consideration by this Court in the event its extraordinary jurisdiction is invoked subsequent thereto. Matters factual in nature are better suited for resolution before the statutory authorities as this Court would not normally be in a position to decide disputed questions of fact. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in A.R.ANTULAY v. R.S.NAYAK [AIR 1988 SC 1531] inter alia observed that the power to create or enlarge jurisdiction is legislative in character, so also the power to confer right of appeal and to take away a right of appeal. It was further stated that no Court, whether superior or inferior, can enlarge the jurisdiction of a Court or divest a person of his right of revision and appeal. This proposition is settled law and it is open to the petitioner to urge his contentions in this regard duly supported by this precedent before the appellate authority as well. Further, a two judge Bench of the Supreme Court in STAR PAPER MILLS LTD., Vs. STATE OF U.P. {[2006] 10 SCC 201}, following its earlier judgment in ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDAN NAGAR, WEST BENGAL Vs. DUNLP INDIA LTD (referred to supra), held that where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, the aggrieved party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. In the light of the above legal environment and as the petitioner has an effective and efficacious statutory appellate remedy under Section 18 of Act and without availing and exhausting such remedy, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the foregoing reasons and without going into the merits of the contentions of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail statutory appellate remedy as stated supra if he is so advised. No order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 12th August, 2011. Msnro