The refusal to renew an arms license under the Arms Act, 1959, based on grounds outside the statutory framework—such as the perceived absence of a threat to life or unrelated criminal proceedings against family members—is legally unsustainable.

WRIT PETITION NO. 108018 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:

1. TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE/ENDORSEMENT DATED 23.07.2025 AT ANNEXURE-M ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1.

2. TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE RENEWAL OF THE LICENSE AS DEEMED FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

a. “To Quash the impugned Notice/Endorsement dated 23.07.2025 at Annexure-M issued by the Respondent No.1.

b. To issue directions to the competent authority to pass appropriate orders on the application of the renewal of the license as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

c. To issue such other reliefs or directions which deems fit to the circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard Smt. Pooja Savadatti, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3. The Petitioner was granted an arms license in the year 1998 after inspection and training conducted in accordance with law. The Gun license was issued on 12.09.1998 for the purpose of protection of the petitioner and his family. It was renewed from time to time for every five-year period, and the last renewal was done in the year 2017. In 2024, the Petitioner submitted another application seeking renewal of the license, which came to be rejected on certain grounds. The ground for rejection was that the Petitioner's son had been embroiled in Crime No.134/2019 and that there was no threat to the life of the petitioner warranting renewal of the license.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the license ought to have been renewed, as it had been renewed without interruption from 1998 to 2017. The only circumstance under which the license was not renewed thereafter was the surrender of the weapon on account of the registration of Crime No.134/2019 and no threat to the life of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the investigation in Crime No.134/2019 has been quashed by this Court in terms of its order 26.03.2024 in WP No.101496 of 2021. The weapon seized at the time of the registration of the crime has not yet been released, notwithstanding the order of quashment of the crime having attained finality. After the quashment of the crime, the Petitioner has submitted another application seeking renewal of the license which comes to be rejected. The rejection of the application, according to the learned counsel, is on the face of it contrary to law.

6. Learned AGA places reliance only on the order of rejection, wherein the grounds assigned are that there is no life threat to the petitioner and that the weapon was surrendered pursuant to communications dated 22.11.2019 and 23.11.2019 owing to the Petitioner’s son being embroiled in Crime No.134/2019. The learned AGA further submits that the crime is pending against the other accused due to which the license can not be renewed.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The only issue for consideration is whether the Petitioner's arms license should be directed to be renewed or otherwise.

9. As observed hereinabove, the sole objection proj