IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14849 of 2006 Between: Joshi Jagdish Prasad, s/o late Shri Mohanlal Joshi, r/o 2001/2002, Tivoli, Hiranandani Gardens, Central Avenue, Powai, Mumbai-400 076. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary to Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad, Maharashtra. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of certiorari calling for the records relating to an connected with G.O.Rt.No.103 dated 21-1-2006 and setting aside the same holding it absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, consequently direct the respondents to restore the Arms License No.20/Home/2000 and permit to retain the 32 NPB Revolver No.R- 377820 ASTRA in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14849 OF 2006 ORDER : On 31.01.2000 the petitioner herein was granted a licence under The Arms Act, 1959 to possess a Revolver and 50 Cartridges. While the petitioner was boarding a Flight for Mumbai on 22.01.2003 during the security check by C.I.S.F., Airpot Security at Aurangabad, the petitioner was found to have possessed 10 live cartridges. Alleging a non- cognizable offence under the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Rules made thereunder, though a case was registered against the petitioner, no further action was taken in that regard. However, on 24.03.2003 the 1st respondent herein issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why his arms licence should not be cancelled alleging that as per the information received from the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad, N.C.No.11 of 2003 was registered against him for a non-cognizable offence under Section 10 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and that he had also not intimated his change of address and did not re-register the arms licence with the local licensing authorities. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 29.3.2003 stating that though it is a fact that N.C.No.11 of 2003 was registered against him, the offence was not intentional since the cartridges were carried while boarding the aircraft by mistake. Thereafter, no further order was passed by the 1st respondent, and in the meanwhile since the licence was about to expire, the petitioner made an application for renewal and accordingly the licence was renewed on 30.01.2004 for a further period of three years. While so, all of a sudden the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 21.1.2006 cancelling the arms licence of the petitioner without assigning any reasons. The said order dated 21.01.2006 is under challenge in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though it is a fact that the petitioner was involved in an offence under the Aircraft Act, 1934, except registering a case since no further steps were taken, the impugned cancellation of arms licence on that ground is arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that mere involvement in the alleged offence under the Aircraft Act is not a valid ground under the provisions of the Arms Act for canceling the licence granted to the petitioner. It is to be noted that as per Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 provides for variation, suspension and revocation of licence, the licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence was granted or suspend or revoke licence if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited under the Arms Act, 1959 or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition. Suspension or revocation of licence is also permissible where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for the public safety or where it is found that the licence was obtained by suppression of the material information or where the licensee contravenes the conditions of licence. That apart, sub-section (7) of Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 empowers the Court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under the Arms Act or the Rules made to suspend or revoke the licence. In the instant case, none of the above grounds are made out. Admittedly the impugned cancellation was only on the ground of the petitioner’s involvement in an offence punishable under the Aircraft Act, 1934. Even the said case registered against the petitioner under the Aircraft Act, 1934 has not been prosecuted any further and it is not as if the petitioner is convicted or any order is passed against him prohibiting him from acquiring or carrying arms or ammunition. The said fact has not been disputed in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. Thus, it is clear that the impugned order is impermissible under Section 17 of the Act. The other allegation in the show-cause notice that the petitioner failed to get his licence re-registered has been specifically denied by the petitioner and the material placed before this Court shows that the petitioner got his licence re-registered on 6.2.2004 furnishing his present address as H.No.72, Banjara Nivas, Sangeet Nagar, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. The petitioner also states that pursuant to the impugned order of cancellation he had surrendered his licence and it stood expired in 2007. In the circumstances, the impugned order of cancellation being arbitrary and illegal is liable to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, while setting aside the impugned order dated 21.1.2006, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make an appropriate application for renewal of his licence within four weeks from today. On receipt of such application, the respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of application for renewal. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 18.11.2008 gbs