Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally not invoked when an effective and efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists, unless exceptional grounds such as patent arbitrariness or violation of natural justice are proven.

ORDER :

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief :

“…to declare the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing the Impugned Order No.HW-3/Arms/38/Home/2018 dated 05.02.2025 rejecting the request for renewal of Arms License as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of the Arms Act, 1959 and in specific violation of the order of this Court in W.P.No.43892 of 2022 and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to forthwith renew/restore the Petitioner's Arms Licence No. 38/Home/2018.…”

Heard Sri P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home.

The Petitioner, a licensed arms holder under Licence No. 38/Home/2018, challenges the impugned order dated 05.02.2025 passed by respondent No.3 rejecting renewal of his arms licence as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and in direct disobedience of the earlier order of this Court in W.P. No.43892 of 2022. The petitioner submits that the earlier cancellation of his licence dated 20.06.2022, based on alleged involvement in multiple criminal cases, was set aside by this Court on 25.04.2023, holding that mere pendency of criminal cases, absent any misuse of the weapon, cannot justify cancellation under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959. The Court permitted fresh action only upon emergence of new material. Subsequently, the factual circumstances have materially changed in favour of the petitioner viz. one FIR has been closed with exonerating the petitioner from the said crime, two FIRs have been stayed by this Court and only one case remains pending trial. Despite this and without any fresh material, the respondent No.3 rejected the renewal application on speculative grounds of possible witness intimidation.

(a) The impugned order suffers from non-application of mind, reliance on stale and substantially diluted grounds and is based on mere conjectures without any supporting material. There is no allegation or evidence of misuse of the weapon or any act threatening public peace or safety. The respondent has failed to meet the statutory threshold of “necessity” under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act.

(b) It is further submitted that the impugned action amounts to a colourable exercise of power, effectively circumventing the binding directions of this Court and unjustly deprives the petitioner of his right to self-protection, thereby endangering his personal safety. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Mandamus to set aside the impugned order dated 05.02.2025 and direct the respondents to renew/restore the petitioner’s arms licence.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is ex facie arbitrary, perverse and unsustainable in law, as it has been passed in complete disregard of the binding judgment of this Court in W.P.No.43892 of 2022. It is contended that the respondent No.3 has exceeded jurisdiction by re-agitating issues already settled by this Court, without the existence of any fresh material as expressly mandated. It is further submitted that the respondent has failed to satisfy the statutory requirement under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, which necessitates a clear and objective finding that such cancellation or refusal is “necessary” for public peace or safety. In the absence of any cogent material, the impugned action rests solely on vague apprehensions and hypothetical assumptions, which cannot form the basis for curtailing a statutory right.

(a) Learned counsel argues that the reasoning assigned in the impugned order, particularly the alleged possibility of witness intimidation, is speculative and unsupported by any record. There is no complaint, report or judicial fin