( 1 ) THE petitioner made an application to the respondent-Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad on 23-5-1997 under Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking an arms licence. The same was rejected by the respondent by an order dated 8-8-1997. Impugning the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reconsider the application for grant of arms licence.

( 2 ) THE impugned order dated 8-8-1997 bearing No. Lando/35/arms/hs. 6/97 reads as follows:"government of Andhra Pradesh (Police Department) Office of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad-City. Dated 8-8-1997. No. L and O/35/35/arms/hs6/97. Memo Sub: Arms Act and Rules-Grant of Fresh Arms Licence-Reg. Ref: Your application dated 23-5-1997. With reference to your application cited, your request for grant of Fresh Arms licence has been considered and rejected . Sd/xxxxx for Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad-City. To: Sri Mir Sabir Ali, R/o:h. No. 22-1-611, Noorkhan Bazar, Hyderabad"

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 13 of the Arms Act empowers the respondent to grant licence and Section 14 deals with the conditions under which a request for grant of an arms licence can be rejected. The respondent, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has not disclosed any reasons in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is wholly unsustainable.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned Sri Sadasiva Reddy, submits, on the strength of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent- Commissioner of Police, that the petitioner is involved in a number of criminal cases and a rowdy sheet was opened against him and if an arms licence is issued to him, there is every likelihood of misusing the weapon by the petitioner and hence the respondent rejected the application of the petitioner for arms licence.

( 5 ) I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

( 6 ) ON 24-4-1998, when the matter came up for admission, it was directed to be listed on 8-6-1998 and to-day the matter has come up before me. Both the learned Counsel requested me to dispose of the writ petition itself. Therefore, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that when an authority exercises statutory powers culminating in a decision such decision should be supported by reasons. There cannot be any dispute with this contention. In fact this legal position is not seriously disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Home. However, what is submitted is that in view of the reasons now disclosed in the counter-affidavit, the petitioner should be directed to avail the alternative remedy by way of appeal. I do not agree. It is well-settled that when a statutory order is passed by a duly constituted statutory authority, the order should disclose the reasons for the conclusion. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas, AIR (39) 1952 SC 16, in similar context held:"we are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. "the above view in Gordhandas case (supra), was followed by a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851. While referring to Gordhandas case (supra) his Lordship Justice Krishna Iyer held: "the second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned an