Point of Law :
Settled principle of law, the impugned order which seeks to reject the request of the petitioner to renew the licence only on the basis of apprehension that “he may misuse against rivals” cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. However, the respondents are directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner afresh including as to whether threat perception to the petitioner exists or not, which can form basis for them for revocation of the licence or to vary the conditions for renewal of the arms licence including reducing the period of such renewal and pass orders afresh. It is also made clear that before passing of such order, the petitioner shall be afforded with an opportunity to put across the petitioner’s stand, which shall be duly considered by appropriate authority

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in issuing Memo No.37793/Arms/2012, dated 09.09.2017 whereby the request of the petitioner for renewal of arms licence No.170/Rein Bazar was rejected, by the first respondent.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent had rejected the application for renewal of Arms Licence based on the report submitted by the second respondent on the ground that the petitioner was involved in two criminal cases i.e., Crime No.205 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 342, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in P.S. Rein Bazar, Hyderabad, and Crime No.226 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 448, 427, 324 and 188 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner claims that the two crimes which were considered by the 1st respondent authority have long over. It is stated that crime No.205 of 2004 has been compromised in Lok Adalat on 30.10.2008, while in Crime No.226 of 2009 the petitioner was acquitted on 04.01.2014. The said report while making reference to the above two cases further stated that though there are no adverse reports seen against the petitioner herein, it is stated that “he can misuse the weapon against rival persons”.

3. Based on the said report of the second respondent, the first respondent herein by the impugned proceedings had rejected the request of the petitioner for revocation of his arms licence and renewing the arms licence for further period only on the sole ground that “he may misuse the weapon against the rival persons.”

4. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the first respondent, the present writ petition is filed inter alia contending that the action of the first respondent in rejecting the request for renewal of arms licence is without any basis and the first respondent had dealt with the matter in a mechanical manner without independent application of mind and based his decision solely on the report of the second respondent. Thus, it is claimed that the action of the first respondent is illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires and effecting the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India and sought for setting aside the impugned Memo No.37793/Arms/2012, dated 09.09.2017 issued by the first respondent herein.

5. Heard Sri S. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit had submitted that the first respondent passed the impugned order solely on the basis of report furnished by the second respondent, did not apply his mind independently. He also contended that even otherwise, the report furnished by the second respondent cannot also form the basis for revocation of the arms licence granted and reject the application for renewal of Arms Licence, inasmuch as the basis of the revocation of arms licence earlier was the involvement of the petitioner in two crimes referred in the said report wherein Crime No.205 of 2004 resulted in compromise before the Lok Adalat while Crime No.226 of 2009 resulted in acquittal of the petitioner. He also further contended that inasmuch as the said report has categorically stated that there are no adverse reports seen against the petitioner, merely on the assumption /apprehension that the petitioner can misuse the weapon against the rival persons cannot form basis for rejecting the request of the petitioner for renewal of arms licence and the said apprehension on the part of the second respondent authority which formed the basis for the first respondent authority to pass the impugned order has no basis to stand and thus sought for setting aside the impugned proceedings.

7. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on judgments of th