The central legal point established in the judgment is that the refusal to grant or renew an Arm License should be based on specific grounds related to public safety and peace as outlined in the Arms Act, 1959. Mere involvement in a crime cannot be assumed to pose a threat to public safety.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

2. Petitioner is working as Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Chandragonda mandal, Kothagudem district. Facts as averred in the writ petition would disclose that in the year 2008 petitioner was elected as President of Khammam District Telangana Non Gazetted Officers' House Building Cooperative Society Limited for a period of 5 years. In the year 2019, he was elected as President of Telangana Non Gazetted Officers' Association (Central Association, Hyderabad) for a period of 3 years. In the year 2017, he was elected as President of Khammam District Government Employees' Cooperative Credit and Thrift Society, Khammam. On 17.8.2009 he has submitted application to grant Arm license for self protection and vide orders dated 12.11.2009 Arm License was granted to the petitioner for a period of one year from 12.11.2009. The Arm License was renewed from time to time; vide orders dated 25.3.2011 for a period of 3 years; vide orders dated 2.1.2014 for a period of further three years and vide orders dated 20.12.2016 it was renewed for a further period of 3 years i.e. from 13.11.2016 to 12.11.2019. On 26.8.2019 petitioner applied for renewal of his Arm License. As there was no response to his request, he submitted reminders dated 3.3.2020, 29.6.2020 and 25.8.2020. By decision dated 15.9.2020, impugned in this writ petition, the Commissioner of Police rejected the request of the petitioner to renew the Arm Licence on the ground he was involved in two crimes i.e. Crime No. 128 of 2011 under Sections 186, 506 read with 34 IPC of Khammam I Town Police Station and Crime No. 92 of 2019 under Sections 120B, 415, 428, 420, 468, 469, 470, 406, 508 read with 34 IPC and Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. of Khammam II Town Police Station.

3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, rejection of the request of the petitioner to renew the Arm License is ex-facie illegal. Mere involvement in a crime is not a ground to refuse renewal of Arm License. He further submitted that out of two crimes registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 128 of 2011 petitioner was already acquitted, therefore, it cannot be referred to any more and Crime No. 92 of 2019 is the only one crime which is pending and pendency of said crime is not a ground to refuse renewal. According to learned counsel still there is threat perception on petitioner and to protect his life, he needs Arm License and denying the same is ex-facie illegal. By referring to the averments made in paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit, he submits that for the first time a new reason is assigned in support of the decision to reject the request of the petitioner for renewal of Arm License. In paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit, deponent refers to Vigilance Enquiry report submitted to the Government in the year 2016 by the Director General (Vigilance and Enforcement) on the allegations in TNGOs Housing Board Cooperative Society of Khammam. He would submit that after this report, Arm License was renewed by proceedings dated 20.11.2016. Thus, it cannot be the basis to reject the request for renewal. He further submitted that even assuming that said reason is valid, as the same was not stated in the order impugned, it cannot be stated to validate the decision by supplementing the reasons in the counter affidavit and same is not permissible in law.

4. In support of his contention that decision to reject the renewal is ex-facie illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law, learned counsel placed reliance on two decision rendered by this Court in L. Raghunath Reddy vs. District Collector, Anantapur District, 2012 (1) ALT 579 and Vegi Jagadish Kumar vs. State of A.P. 2017 (5) ALT 12.

5. According to learned Assistant Government Pleader, writ petitioner without availing the remedy of appeal instituted the writ petition. Thus, writ petition is not maintainable. Against the order of Commissioner of Police, remed