IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5939 of 2009 Between: K.V.Nageswar Reddy S/o. K.P Nagi Reddy Jammalamadugu(M) Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police Kadapa District At Kadapa 2 The District Collector Kadapa District at Kadapa .....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 to issue appropriate writ or order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in granting the fresh Arm License to the petitioner to possess weapon baising on the letter Ref C3/537/M/2008 dt12-6-2008 of the 2nd respondent as illegal irregular arbitrary unjustified unconstitutional and unsustainable and direct the respondent to forth with grant Arm License to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he submitted an application, dated 19.05.2008 to the 2nd respondent-District Collector for grant of an Arms licences for purchase of revolver/pistol. While so, the 1st respondent- Superintendent of Police, through an Endorsement dated 11.07.2008, called for an enquiry report from the Circle Inspector of Police, Jammalamadugu, who, after conducting enquiry, submitted a report dated 27.7.2008 to the effect that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal case, and he is a business man, and he has to move from place to place in connection with his business and has to carry huge cash, as such, his application for grant of arms licence may be considered for possessing a revolver/pistol for self protection from robbers/dacoits. The petitioner states that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jammalamadugu also endorsed his recommendations and proposed the grant of licence to the petitioner, but the respondents have not granted licence so far. Then, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 08.09.2008 to the 2nd respondent for consideration of application for grant of licence, but his grievance is that even, he too, has not passed any orders on his representation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents. Though this Court granted sufficient time to the learned Government Pleader for Home for filing counter affidavit, so far no counter has been filed, however the learned Government Pleader has stated that the respondents would consider the petitioner’s representation for grant of Arms licence after the elections are over. In view of the stand taken by the learned Government Pleader for Home that the respondents would consider the representation dated 08.09.2008 said to have been made by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondents are directed to consider the representation dated 08.09.2009 said to have been made by the petitioner for grant of Arms licence, immediately after the elections are over taking into consideration the report submitted by the Inspector of Police, as endorsed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jammalamadugu, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law”. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 15th April, 2009 bcj