THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 18958 of 2008 O r d e r: The petitioner, who is a resident of Rudraram village, claims to be an agriculturist and a businessman, carrying on agricultural operations and also mining bentonite lumps etc. He states that he was attacked by his political opponents and business rivals, and that the news about the attack made on him, also appeared in the newspapers. As there is serious threat to his life from his political and business adversaries, the petitioner states he made an application dated 18.10.2006 to the respondent, namely the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, enclosing the news papers cuttings, which evidenced the attack made on him by one Mr. Lakshma Reddy, Municipal Chairman, and requested him to provide the arms licence. As no action thereon was taken, he states that he ﬁled a writ petition in W.P. No. 23435 of 2006, and this Court by order dated 10.11.2006, disposed of the said writ petition, directing the respondent to consider his application for grant of arms licence within a period of three months. Thereafter, the petitioner states that he approached the respondent and furnished the necessary details and complied with all the procedures/formalities. That the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, has also vide his letter No. B/926/2006, dated 20.12.2006, had recommended his case for grant of arms licence. Despite the said recommendation of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, the petitioner states that the respondent on the basis of the report dated 19.02.2007 of the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District, vide orders dated 12.03.2007, impugned in the writ petition, rejected his application for grant of arms licences, on the ground that the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District, did not recommend grant of arms licence as he is involved in criminal cases, namely Crime No. 07/2004 and Crime No. 35/2006, which are pending and that he was also arrested in the said cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is serious threat to the life of the petitioner from his political and business rivals, who made an attack on him and his family members, the factum of which was even reported in the newspapers. Therefore, the petitioner submitted application on 18.10.2006 enclosing the paper cuttings etc., and requested him to provide arms licence, and as no action thereon was taken, he ﬁled writ petition in W.P. No. 23435 of 2006, which by order dated 10.11.2006, was disposed of directing the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence. In pursuance of the said order, the respondent has taken up the application of the petitioner for consideration. He submitted that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, vide his letter dated 20.12.2006, had recommended grant of arms licence to the petitioner, however, ignoring the said recommendation, the respondent, namely the District Collector, Ranga Reddy, issued the impugned Memo dated 12.03.2007, rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of arms licence, on the ground that the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District, vide his letter dated 19.02.2007, did not recommend grant of arms licence, because the petitioner is involved in criminal cases. He submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in false cases, and that in one of the two cases, referred to in the impugned order, the petitioner was acquitted, and as such, he contended that the respondent committed an error in rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of arms licence on the basis of the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District, and prayed that the same be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. The respondent, namely the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District ﬁled counter. The learned Government Pleader for Home, reiterating the counter averments submitted that the petitioner himself has admitted that he is involved in criminal cases, and if the petitioner is granted arms licence, there is every likelihood of his misusing the same to threaten his rivals. He submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District, did not recommend issue of arms licence to the petitioner because he is involved in Cr. No. 35 of 2006 for the oﬀences under Sections 307 and 120-B IPC & Sections 25(1)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act on the ﬁle of Police Station, Tandur, and he was also arrested in Crime No. 07 of 2004 for the oﬀences under Sections 147, 149, 448, 452, 506, 341, 366-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Child Marriage Act. Therefore, the application of the petitioner for grant of licence was rejected by the respondent by the impugned order, and no interference is called for therewith, and prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondent, and perused the record produced by the respondent. The petitioner is a resident of Rudraram village of Peddamul Mandal. It appears that the petitioner is having a running political and business feud with one Lakshma Reddy, who happens to be the Chairman of Municipal Corporation, Tandur. The disputes between them were also reported in the news papers, when the petitioner and his family members were said to have been attacked by the group belonging to Lakshma Reddy, who not only beat the inmates and brother-in-law of the petitioner indiscriminately, but also damaged the property. The petitioner, therefore, on 18.10.2006 addressed a letter to the Inspector General of Police, bringing to his notice that there is a threat to his life from Lakshma Reddy, who is not only trying to kill him, but also disabling him from enjoying his property, and requested him to prove necessary protection to himself and all his family members and employees. Apprehending threat to his life from the said person Lakshma Reddy and his group and others, the petitioner made application dated 18.10.2006 (referred in the impugned order as 30.10.2006) to the respondent for grant of licence for protecting his life in self-defence. However, the respondent, on the basis of the letter dated 19.02.2007, addressed by the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District, issued the impugned Memo, dated 12.03.2007, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence, inter alia stating as under: Sri P. Subhan Reddy S/o Ram Reddy R/o Rudraram village of Peddamul Mandal is hereby informed that the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District has not recommended for issue of arms licence to him for the reason that the applicant has involved in Crime No. 35/06 U/s. 307, 120(B) IPC, Sec. 25(1)(A) 27(1) of Arms Act and Sec. 3 & 5 of Explosives Substance Act at Police Station, Tandur, and he was also arrested in Cr. No. 07/04 U/s. 147, 149, 448, 452, 506, 341, 384, 366A and 3 and 4 of Child Marriage Act and the same are pending in the Courts. Hence the request of Sri. P. Subhan Reddy S/o. Ram Reddy R/o. Rudraram village, Peddamul Mandal, for issue of arms licence is hereby rejected. From a reading of the above impugned Memo, would disclose that since two criminal cases are registered against the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District, did not recommend grant of arms licence to the petitioner, and therefore, the respondent rejected the request of the petitioner. Even though the impugned Memo, refers that two cases are pending against the petitioner, it is the case of the petitioner that he has been falsely foisted in the said cases, and in fact, in case i.e. Crime No. 07/2004, which was numbered as S.C. No. 117 of 2006, he was acquitted by judgment dated 19.04.2006 of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, and to evidence that, he produced a copy thereof, which the respondent as also admitted. However, in respect of the other case i.e. Crime No. 35/06 on the ﬁle of Police Station, Tandur, the police have ﬁled charge sheet. In fact, the petitioner has also ﬁled some criminal cases against his rivals, which are still pending. From this, it is clear that as on today, the petitioner is involved only in one case, which relates to attack, alleged to have been made by the petitioner on the Lakshma Reddy, his political and business rival, and in fact, the police have also ﬁled charge sheet in the said case. Though the Superintendent of Police, is said to have not recommended for issuance of arms licence to the petitioner, the fact remains, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Peddamul, vide his letter dated 20.12.2006, recommended grant of arms licence to the petitioner on the ground that there is threat to his life. However, the ﬁle produced by the respondent does not contain this letter. The respondent, admittedly, has not denied about this letter either in the counter or at the time of arguments. The respondent, except relying on the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District, has failed to look into the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Peddamul. In his report, the Superintendent of Police, reported that there are disputes between the petitioner and Lakshma Reddy, and that their enmity has reached its peak, and that they resorted to counter-attacks and that the petitioner was even remanded to judicial custody. Be that as it may, as per the provisions of Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959, when an application for grant of a licnece is made, the licencing authority upon receipt of the application, shall call for a report of the oﬃcer in charge of the nearest police station on that application, and such oﬃcer shall send his report within the prescribed time, and based on the report, the licencing authority may either grant or refuse to grant the same, and if the oﬃcer in charge of the nearest police station does not send his report on the application within the prescribed time, the licencing authority may, if it deems ﬁt, make such order, after expiry of the prescribed time, without further waiting for that report. Admittedly, the ﬁle produced by the respondent does not disclose that any report was called for from the oﬃcer in charge of the nearest police station on the application of the petitioner. In fact, the report of the Superintendent of Police does not disclose the source of information, it merely refers to the letters of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District and orders of this Court. As stated above, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Peddamul, has recommended for grant of arms licence to the petitioner. The respondent, before issuing the impugned Memo, has not called for report from the oﬃcer in charge of the nearest police station, and merely relied on the report of the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy, and ignored the report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Peddamul, the existence of which, is not disputed by the respondent. The respondent, being the licencing authority, has to examine the applications for grant of arms licence dispassionately, by calling for report from the oﬃcer in charge of the nearest police station, and not any other. The respondent, being the licencing authority, has to examine the applications for grant of arms licence dispassionately, by calling for a report from the oﬃcer in charge of the nearest police station, and not any other. The impugned Memo rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of licence was passed by the respondent without application of mind. The impugned Memo except referring to the pendency of two criminal cases, namely Crime No. 35 of 2006of the ﬁle of the Police Station, Tandur and Crime No. 07 of 2004, has not taken into consideration the fact that in Crime No. 07 of 2004, which was numbered as S.C. No. 117 of 2006, the petitioner was acquitted and the sessions case dismissed. Both the Superintendent of Police and the District Collector, have not considered the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner about the threat to his life and family members. What is the steps they have taken to protect the life of the petitioner and his family members and property when he reported about the attack made on him, allegedly by his rivals. The impugned Memo, leave alone assigning any reason, in fact, had not considered the threat perception, while rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of arms licence. In the grant of arms licence, the primordial consideration, which the licencing authority, has to keep in mind is the threat perception of the individual who makes the application for grant of arms licence, and pendency of criminal cases, and alleged misuse of the same by the applicant cannot be assumed, even before it is granted. In the above view of the matter, the impugned Memo dated 12.03.2007, issued by the respondent is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the respondent with a direction to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence after calling for report of the oﬃcer in charge of the nearest police station as required under Section 13(2) of the Arms Act, 1959, and in the light of the threat perception faced by the petitioner and the incidents that have taken place prior to the making of the request by the petitioner for grant of arms licence, and pass appropriate speaking orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 20th November, 2008. KSR