HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 15325 OF 2011 . DATED 27th July, 2011. BETWEEN P.Siva Bhushan Reddy …Petitioner And Government of AP, rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 15325 of 2011. ORDER: Aggrieved by the action of the second respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner for renewal of his arms licence, the present Writ Petition is filed. By the impugned order dated 26.04.2011 in proceedings L.Dis.(C6)1588/M/2010 the second respondent, rejected the request of the petitioner for renewal of arms licence as there is no threat to his life. It is the case of the petitioner that he was granted Arms License bearing No. 101/Adoni dated 04.10.1991 by the first respondent to possess or carry on SBBL.12 Bore Gun and the said licence was renewed from time to time and lastly it was renewed for the period from 05.10.2007 to 4.10.2010. It is his further case that he also sought permission to sell the aforesaid gun and to purchase a new N.P. Bore Revolver or pistol, for which the second respondent vide letter dated 14.5.2010 called for report from the third respondent, who under his letter dated 25.08.2010 recommended to sell the aforesaid gun and purchase N.P. Bore Revolver or pistol categorically mentioning that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal case and the weapon is not used in the commission of any criminal case. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the second respondent through the impugned proceedings rejected his request for renewal of arms licence for further period of three years. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District, third respondent has filed a counter affidavit admitting sanction of arms licence to the petitioner in the year 1991, its renewal from time to time and receipt of application from the petitioner for further renewal. It is stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to the application of the petitioner for renewal of the arms licence, the second respondent was requested to get the matter enquired into and submit a report by the Circle Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Adoni, who, accordingly submitted a detailed report on 27.12.2010 through the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Adoni, wherein it was categorically stated that the petitioner is a landlord and holder of license No.101/Adoni, dt. 4.10.1991 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the same was valid up to 4.10.2010. It was further stated in the report that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal case and the weapon is not used in the commission of any criminal case in the jurisdiction of II Town Police Station, Adoni and recommended for renewal of gun licence for further period. It is further stated that after receipt of the enquiry report, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Adoni herself conducted personal enquiry into the matter, which revealed that there is no specific threat to the life of the petitioner from any angle in the District including interior areas and naxalite affected areas. It is further stated that when there is no threat to the life and liberty of the petitioner, the action of the second respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner to renew the Arms licence is in accordance with law. It is also stated that against the order of the second respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for renewal of arms licence, an alternative efficacious remedy of filing of an appeal before the first respondent is available and as the petitioner has not exhausted such alternative remedy, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Heard both sides. Perused the case file. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s brother was murdered by one Venkatappa Niadu and Prabhakar Reddy and there is thus immense threat to the life and liberty of the petitioner from the aforesaid persons and their henchmen and that the respondents ought to have renewed the arms license of the petitioner. He pointed out that the second respondent has not afforded any prior opportunity before rejecting his request to justify his case. He further submitted that in the report submitted by the third respondent vide letter dated 25.08.2010 for purchase of the new pistol by the petitioner, it was categorically stated that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal case and that he had not misused the gun in commission of any offence and having opined so and recommended to purchase new gun, it is not open to the second respondent to reject the request of the petitioner for renewal of licence. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the petitioner has specifically stated in the writ affidavit describing the threat to his life and liberty from his rival faction leaders namely Venkatappa Niadu and Prabhakar Reddy and their henchmen and considering the same, the respondents ought to have renewed the arms license of the petitioner. He argued that aviling of statutory remedy is not always an efficacious alternative remedy on all occasions. The learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents while supporting the impugned order submitted that as there is no threat perception to the life and liberty of the petitioner, the respondents have rightly rejected the request of the petitioner for renewal of arms licence. He submitted that the second respondent after conducting a proper enquiry passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference by this Court. He pointed out that where hierarchy of appeals is provided under the statute, the party must exhaust such statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. Admittedly, the first respondent granted arms licence to the petitioner under L.Dis. No. 101/Adoni, dated 4.10.1991 to possess SBBL 12 Bore gun. The said licence was renewed from time to time and it had lastly been extended for the period from 5.10.2007 to 4.10.2010. When the said licence was about to expire, the petitioner has made an application on 16.09.2010 to the second respondent seeking to renew the arms licence. However, the said request of the petitioner was rejected under the impugned order on the ground that there is no threat perception to the life of the petitioner. As could be seen from the material placed on record, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that there is a threat perception to his life and liberty from the rival faction leaders namely Venkatappa Niadu and Prabhakar Reddy and their henchmen. The said pleading of the petitioner has not been refuted by the respondents in their counter affidavit. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit, the third respondent has stated that the Circle Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Adoni, while submitting a report pursuant to the instructions of the second respondent duly recommended for the renewal of arms licence in favour of the petitioner categorically mentioning therein that the petitioner is a landlord, not involved in any criminal case and that the weapon is not used in the commission of any offence in the jurisdiction of II Town Police Station, Adoni. As the petitioner is a landlord and when he is expecting threat to his life from the rival faction leaders and further he is neither involved in any criminal case nor is the weapon used in the commission of offence, the second respondent ought to have considered the request of the petitioner for renewal of his arms licence. Further, it can be seen from the respective stands taken by the parties that when the petitioner has asked for permission to sell the SBBL 12 Bore gun bearing No. 130478 and to purchase a new N.P. Bore Revolver or pistol, the second respondent under his letter dated 14.5.2010 called for report from the third respondent, who vide his report dated 25.8.2010 recommended for selling the gun and purchasing N.P. Bore revolver or pistol. The third respondent too pointed out that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal case and the weapon is not used in the commission of any criminal case. Having called for the report just before the expiry of existing arms licence and there being a recommendation in favour of the petitioner, wherein it was recommended for sale of old gun and purchase of new weapon/pistol, the action of the second respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for renewal of his arms licence is not justified. Further, as could be seen from the impugned order, it merely states that as there is no threat to the life of the petitioner, the licensing authority decided not to renew his arms licence. It is expected of the respondent authorities that before considering the material against the petitioner, he should be given an opportunity to meet those allegations which are against him. If after hearing the petitioner the authority is still of the opinion that the grant or renewal is not required, then under the mandate of the law it has to record the reasons therefor. Needless to observe, principles of natural justice are applicable even to the matters which are quasi judicial and administrative in nature. Though the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not exhausted appellate remedy as provided under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 and thus Writ Petition is not maintainable, as could be seen from the aforesaid discussion, the order of the second respondent is ex facie not sustainable in law in as much as it simply states that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner. It is well known that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for quashing an order when it is passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice. Further, the petitioner is in possession of the arms licence since 1991 and at no point of time there is any adverse remark against him as to misusing of the weapon. For the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed and order dated 26.04.2010 passed by the second respondent under proceedings L.Dis. (C6)1588/M/2010 is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 27th July, 2011. Msnro