IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.43214 of 2017

11^th March, 2026 Between:

Jagpal Singh …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana and 4 others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th Respondent in not renewing the Petitioners Arms License No. NZB/2656/81 vide CCLAS. Proc. No. LA.II (A)/434/2015 dt. 20-11- 2017 and Proc. No. C1/394/2014-M dt. 27-01-2015 respectively as illegal and arbitrary in the interest of justice and may pass..........”

2. Heard Mr.Krisana Sankya Talluri, learned counsel representing Mr.E.Venkata Siddhartha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 5.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent Nos.3 and 4 without properly appreciating the pleadings of the petitioner did not renew the petitioner’s Arms License No.NZB/2656/81 vide CCLA’s.Proc.No.LA.II (A)/434/2015 dated 20.11.2017 and Proc.No.C1/394/2014-M dated 27.01.2015, arbitrarily without any legal basis, prays for intervention. Further, the Arms License was granted to the petitioner on 31.07.1981 till 31.12.2023, whereafter, this application was made with the licensee authority for renewal upon issuance of the show cause notice, dated 10.12.2014 and by exercising the threat Act, the police declined to renew the license. Wherafter, the appellant has ben filed before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana State and vide impugned proceedings affirmed the view taken by the licensee authority, dismissed the petitioner application, thus, the present petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that licensee authority have not considered the originals, granted license in 1981 and which was continued up to 2013. The petitioner is in transport business and frequent traveler across the states and the perception is on higher degree during the business transactions. The licensee authority having considered this aspect that the petitioner abided by the conditions stipulated in the Arms Act all long during the license period, declined to renew the license. Having regard to the totality of the cirucumstances and the impugned perception pointed out by the petitioner, prayed for intervention.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that on renewal application of the petitioner, the authority has conducted threat perception enquiries and as it has revealed no threat to the license or his family members in the Nizamabad District, the license was revoked. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the Arms License was revoked without there being any lawful ground, is unfounded. He further pleads that the conclusion drawn by the licensee authority in renewal the Arms license of the petitioner has been tested before the appellate authority which on independent enquiry deformed decision, thus, the contention of the petitioner does not subsist and hence, prayed for dismissal. 6. I have perused the material on record.

7. The petitioner’s grievance is that the Arms License was not renewed by the licensing authority and affirmed by the appellate authority. The contest of the petitioner is that the petitioner got a threat to his life as he is doing transport business and frequent traveler across the states and he would be carrying cash. This aspect has been placed before the authorities for renewal of the license and basing on the conclusion of threat perception analysis, they have concluded that there is no threat to the license of his family members, thus, this view appears to be reasonable. In the absence of any specific aspect pointed out by the petitioner to substantiate that the conclusion drawn by the authorities is perverse or improper in the legal sense. This Court finds no r