IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 12231 of 2002 BETWEEN: Saleeh Bin Sayeed S/o. Syed Salam, No. 6-3-580/A, Anandanagar Khairatabad, Hyderabad ... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT 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 issue a Writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in No.HW- 3/1309/PG/Arms/2002, dated 14-6-2002, issued by the respondent herein, whereunder the petitioner's Arms Licence No. 1309/panjagutta, has been cancelled, as illegal, improper, unjust and violative of the principles of natural justice and further declare that the petitioner is entitled to have Arms Licence No. 1309/Panjagutta, since he did not violate any of the Licence conditions and the alleged reasoning do not satisfy the requirements mentioned for revocation of licence under section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BOMMANARAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner, a business, is holder of arms licence No.1309/Panjagutta covered by three weapons i.e. (1) .33 N.P. Bore Revolver No.B-69397 Webly and Scott; (2) .315 N.P. Bore Rifle No.93-AB-2516 10-F and (3) 12 Bore DRDL Gun No.51230 made in London and the said licence was valid up to 02.03.2002. While so, the respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 14.06.2002 canceling the arms licence. 2. Counter has been filed stating that previously petitioner and his sons were involved in criminal cases and thereafter, the gun licence was canceled, which was questioned in WP.No.9374 of 2000 and the writ petition was allowed setting aside the cancellation order on the ground that the petitioner was not given due notice. In compliance of the said order, the licence was renewed for two years with effect from 20.01.2000 to 20.03.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner was involved in Cr.No.11/2002 under Sections 353 and 506 of Indian Penal Code of police station, Panjagutta and the licence was not renewed after 20.03.2002. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Police issued show cause notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation as to why his licence shall not be cancelled. The said show cause notice dated 05.05.2002 was served on the petitioner on 06.05.2002 and the petitioner vide letter dated 13.05.2002 requested the Commissioner of Police to give him 15 days time to submit his explanation and accordingly he was granted time till 20.05.2002 as last chance. But the petitioner failed to submit any explanation till 10.06.2002, therefore, the file was put up for cancellation and accordingly by impugned order dated 14.06.2002 the Commissioner of Police cancelled the said licence. Admittedly, an appeal lies against the said order under Section 18 of the Arms Act, but the petitioner failed to avail the alternative remedy. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Cr.No.11 of 2002 charge sheet has been filed, which was numbered as C.C.No.508 of 2002 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the learned Magistrate by judgment dated 27.12.2004 acquitted the petitioner-A1; therefore, the ground on which the licence was cancelled is not in existence. 4. If that be so, it is for the petitioner to file an application either for review or for reconsideration of the licence, as it cannot be said that the cancellation of licence as on 14.06.2002 is illegal and arbitrary as the crime was pending and thereafter on 27.12.2004 the petitioner was acquitted. Subsequent acquittal will not give rise a ground to set aside the cancellation of the licence. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps before the authority concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 16, 2008 DSK