HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No. 13470 OF 2008 Date: 27-09-2010 Between: Varada Venkata Govinda Rajulu ………. Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh and others …….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No. 13470 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action on the part of the respondents in refusing to renew the arms license beyond 31-12-2007 basing on the report submitted by the third respondent, dated 29-04-2008 and issuing proceedings vide M.L.Dis.1457/2007 C5, dated 07-06-2008, as arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioner, he is a holder of license G.L.No.62/477/SKL to NP Bore Pistol bearing No.481821. He has the license from the year 1968 onwards, which is being renewed from time to time for the last forty years. However, he filed an Application for renewal beyond 31-12-2007 before the second respondent and on a report forwarded by the third respondent, the renewal was denied through the impugned order, dated 07-06-2008 duly observing that the petitioner turned to be a senior citizen and therefore renewal of the license, on security point of view, cannot be granted. In the impugned order, the status of the petitioner was not denied. In fact, it was stated that large scale assets and lands are held by the petitioner in his native place and other places apart from he is the Managing Director of the Touch-class Nagavali Hotel in Srikakulam Town. Only on the ground that the area is badly infested with naxalites, the request of the petitioner for renewal was denied though it was observed that the petitioner is a VVIP in Srikakulam District etc. The petitioner hails from Jamindari family and his wife is a former MLA belonging to Telugu Desam Party and presently he is holding 35 acres of wet and dry land in Heerapuram village of Miliyaputti Mandal. His wife and children are holding 50 acres of dry land in Tumukonda Banjar village in Miliyaputti Mandal, 18 acres of dry land in Pallivuru village in Vajrapukothuru Mandal, 10 acres of coconut tope in Peddamuraharipuram village in Vajrapurkothuru Mandal and a salt factory of 200 acres at Pundi. The respondents are also well aware of the assets received by him. Inspite of this, refusal of renewal is arbitrary and illegal. The respondents filed counter reiterating the same stand as was taken in the impugned orders and it reads as under: “3. In reply to Para No.3 of the affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam has reported that after enquiry it is revealed that the petitioner is having large scale fixed assets like cashew, coconut topes as well as salt factories and lands both in his native place and other places in Meliaputti, Vajrapukotturu Mandal limits of Andhra Pradesh and a place near Parlakimidi of Orissa State. Besides, he is Managing Director of Nagavali Hotel in Srikakulam Town. The Meliaputti Mandalam is abutting Ganjam District of Orissa State which are badly infested with the activities of the Andhra Pradesh Border Naxal Dalams and the present scenario of assailant Naxal groups is to muster their strength by way of recruiting youth into their dalams and getting fire-arms by snatching from private individuals. The conditions in Vajrapukotturu Mandalam and its surrounding are almost same. Finally, the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam has recommended not to renew the arms licence. It is true that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam and Palakonda have been addressed to send feasibility reports. But later it was felt that since the 3rd respondent has sent a comprehensive report on security point of view and the feasibility reports of the Revenue Divisional Officers do not serve the purpose as the present case was not recommended case for renewal of gun licence. Keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances and also the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam, this respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 07.06.2008 rejecting the claim of the petitioner, which is in accordance with law.” From the above, it is clear that though the status of the petitioner was accepted, it appears, on silly grounds the respondents have refused to renew the license of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the second respondent is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, as per law, other than the reason that the petitioner is a senior citizen itself. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V. RAMULU, J Date: 27-09-2010 Note: Issue copy in three days. YCR