THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2135 of 2011 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of endorsement, dated 24.04.2010, issued in proceedings No.L.Ref.C4/SR No.591/AAR/07. Petitioner is a resident of Chittoor Town and he is a Class-I contractor. It is his case that for the purpose of his contract works, he frequently travels and carries cash with him and for protection sake, he applied for grant of license to possess a revolver. It is his further case that he submitted an application to the second respondent - District Collector, Chittoor, who in turn, called for specific remarks from the first and third respondents - Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, respectively, for grant of arms license to the petitioner. It is also his case that though the District Collector is the competent authority under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Rules made there under, the fourth respondent - District Revenue Officer, Chittoor, who has no authority, issued the impugned endorsement rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that he involved in Crime No.11 of 2009 on the file of II Town Police Station, Chittoor, and Crime Nos.51 of 2006 and 46 of 2009 on the file of Yadamarri Police Station. Mainly, it is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent is not the competent authority to consider his application for grant of license to possess a revolver. When the matter came up on earlier occasions on 04.02.2011, 08.02.2011 and 11.02.2011, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader for Home to ascertain whether the fourth respondent, who issued the impugned endorsement, is a competent authority under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Rules made there under, or not. When the matter is taken up today, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that the impugned endorsement was issued by the fourth respondent and under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, District Collector is the licensing authority. As much as it is stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that the second respondent is the competent authority to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of license to possess a revolver and as the application of the petitioner was rejected by the fourth respondent, who is not empowered with the power to consider such applications, I set aside the endorsement, dated 24.04.2010, issued in proceedings No.L.Ref.C4/SR No.591/AAR/07. However, the petitioner is permitted to submit another application to the second respondent, in continuation of the application submitted by him earlier, for grant of license to possess a revolver, within a period of two (2) weeks from today. Thereupon, the second respondent shall consider the same afresh, pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to him, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) months thereafter. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th FEBRUARY, 2011. Note: issue c.c. in one week. kvni