HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 31752 of 2010 DATED 6th September, 2011 BETWEEN Puste Prahalada Rao …..Petitioner and Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 31752 of 2010 ORDER: Questioning the order of the second respondent in proceedings No.L&O/A8/1028/2010 dated 15.09.2010 whereby the request of the petitioner for re-registration and renewal of his arms licence was rejected, the present Writ Petition is filed. As set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that he is a real estate businessman. The first respondent had earlier issued arms licence to him under the proceedings bearing No. 47/Home/2000 to possess .32 NP Bore Revolver NO.54.58 with ‘All India’ area validity in the year 2000. The said licence has been renewed from time to time and lastly it had been renewed up to 30.03.2007 and before expiry of the licence period, he made applications on 3.3.2007 and 26.3.2007 for re-registration and renewal of the same. However, the second respondent issued show cause notice No.HE.3/Arms/975/2007, dated 15.4.2008 to the petitioner to show cause as to why his arms licence should not be cancelled, to which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.4.2008. However, the first respondent vide Memo dated 6.1.2009 again asked the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why his arms licence should not be cancelled, to which also, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 6.4.2009. While so, the second respondent under the impugned order dated 15.09.2010 rejected the request of the petitioner for re-registration and renewal of his arms licence primarily on the ground of his involvement in Crime No. 122 of 2007 registered for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 452, 307, 364, 511 IPC r/w. 34 IPC on the file of the Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station of Cyberabad and the trial is stated to be pending in the above crime, and as also his involvement in petty case No.7646 /2007 registered for the offences punishable under Section 70 (1) & (b) CP Act on the file of the Police Station, Saidabad, which ended in conviction and imposition of a fine of Rs.100/- against the petitioner vide STC.No. 1857 of 2007. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that the acts of the petitioner are prone to create breach of peace and maintainability of law & Order. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Zone, Hyderabad, third respondent filed counter, admitting grant of arms licence to the petitioner by the first respondent in the year 2000; receipt of applications dated 3.3.2007 and 26.03.2007 from the petitioner for its re-registration and renewal; issuance of show cause notices dated 15.4.2008 and 26.4.2008 and receipt of explanations from the petitioner dated 26.4.2008 and 6.4.2009 respectively therefor. The third respondent has also narrated the involvement of the petitioner in Crime No. 122/2007 and Pitty case No. 7646 of 2007. He therefore stated that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in as much as the petitioner has not availed statutory appellate remedy available to him under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 to challenge the impugned order. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. Perused the case file. Admittedly the petitioner was granted an arms licence in the year 2000 to possess .32 NP Bore Revolver No.54/85 with ‘All India’ area validity. The second and first respondents issued show cause notices calling for explanations from the petitioner as to why his arms licence should not be cancelled due to his involvement in the criminal cases as stated supra. The petitioner submitted his explanations on 26.4.2008 and 6.4.2009 therefor. However, the first respondent under the impugned order rejected the request of the petitioner for re-registration and renewal of his arms licence as afore stated. Section 18 of the Act provides for filing an appeal against the order refusing to grant 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.” It is palpable from the above provision that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned rejection order, a statutory appellate remedy is provided therefor, as rightly pointed out by the respondents. However, the petitioner did not choose to avail the said statutory appellate remedy for the reasons best known to him. It is a well settled proposition of law that Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to be used for circumventing or short-circuiting statutory 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…….” [Emphasis added] The hierarchy of statutory remedies provided under the Act of 1959 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, 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 subject matter, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail statutory appellate remedy as stated supra if he is so advised. Needless to state, all contentions are kept open to the petitioner to raise before the appellate authority. No order as to costs. ------------------------------------------ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA DATED 6th September, 2011. Msnro