THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.2473 OF 2017

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

“…to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo no. 13849/Arms/ 2016 dated 23-9-2016 issued by the first respondent cancelling Arms Licence no. 202/Golconda possessed by the petitioner, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.….”

2. I have heard Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.G.Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon cancellation of Arms Licence No.202/Golconda, dated 23.09.2016, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions against the said order of cancellation.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, however, contends that the impugned cancellation order is appealable under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. The statute explicitly provides an appellate mechanism against such orders, and therefore, without availing the said statutory remedy, the petitioner’s direct approach to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable.

5. I have carefully perused the material available on record. The substance of the petitioner’s grievance is directed against the order of cancellation of the arms licence originally granted in his favour. Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 provides the remedy of appeal in cases where a licence is refused, varied, suspended, or revoked. The relevant portion of Section 18 reads as follows:

i. Any person aggrieved by an order of the licensing authority refusing to grant a licence, varying the conditions of a licence, or by an order suspending or revoking a licence, may prefer an appeal against such order to the prescribed appellate authority within the prescribed period.

Proviso: No appeal shall lie against an order made by, or under the direction of, the Government.

ii. No appeal shall be admitted beyond the prescribed limitation period unless the appellant satisfies the appellate authority that sufficient cause prevented him from filing within time.

iii. The computation of limitation for filing appeals shall be governed by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.

iv. Every appeal shall be filed by way of a written petition accompanied by a statement of reasons and such fee as may be prescribed.

v. The appellate authority, while disposing of the appeal, shall follow the prescribed procedure and ensure reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

vi. Unless otherwise directed, the order appealed against shall remain in force pending disposal of the appeal.

vii. The appellate authority’s decision confirming, modifying, or reversing the impugned order shall be final.

6. From the above statutory framework, it is manifest that an efficacious and adequate remedy is available to the petitioner in the form of a statutory appeal before the competent appellate authority, in the instant case, the Principal Secretary, Home (Arms Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad. Judicial precedent consistently holds that where a statute provides a specific remedy, the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, will ordinarily decline to entertain the writ petition unless exceptional circumstances exist, such as violation of fundamental rights, principles of natural justice, or patent lack of jurisdiction (Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, (1998) 8 SCC 1; Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882).

7. In the absence of any extraordinary or exceptional circumstance pleaded or established by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226. The petitioner is accordingly relegated to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959.

8. In view of t