The court held that the appellate authority must dispose of an appeal against the rejection of an arms license renewal by duly considering the applicant's explanation and providing a fair opportunity for a hearing.

ORDER :

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

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the orders of the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, in RC/A1/96/1908/Cyb/2020, dated 23.07.2022 and the further orders vide his Notice Rc.No.A1/96/1908/CYB/2020-25, dated 20.06.2025 for the Revival/ renewal of the Petitioner’s Arms License despite his life is in danger as arbitrary and illegal, in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Sections 13 to 15 of the Arms Act; and consequently direct the respondents to renew Arms license of the petitioner and issue such…”

2. Heard Mr. Ch.Samson Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is retired as Registrar of Central University and he was granted arms licence for 0.32 revolver way back in the year 1983 and the same was renewed from time to time. After retirement from the service, he took up agricultural work in his ancestral lands in Shivampet Village and Mandal, Medak District. He is the owner of land admeasuring Acs.26.37 guntas near reserve forest of Narsapur and the said place is less inhabited and finding vulnerable as such a few social elements attacked him. Basing on his complaint, a case was registered in crime No.318 of 2014 on the file of the Shivampet Police Station and investigation is pending.

4. While the things stood thus, petitioner’s arms licence was expired in the year 2017 and the same was renewed for a period from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018. Therefore, he has submitted an application dated 09.11.2020 to the respondent authorities seeking renewal of his arms licence. Respondent No.2 has issued show-cause notice dated 05.08.2021 to the petitioner directing him to submit his explanation as to why the licence issued to him should not be cancelled. Petitioner has submitted his explanation on 25.06.2022.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering his explanation, respondent No.2 has issued impugned proceedings vide Procgs.No.A1/96/1908/Cyb/ 2020-22, dated 23.07.2022 and rejected the renewal application submitted by the petitioner. That being so, on 09.06.2025 petitioner has submitted a representation to respondent No.2 seeking renewal of his arms licence and the said request was also rejected by respondent No.2 vide notice, dated 20.06.2025. Hence, the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that without considering the explanation dated 25.06.2022 submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned proceedings dated 23.07.2022 rejecting the renewal application submitted by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner does not have any threat or danger to his life. The impugned order is contrary to Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act. Petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 challenging the impugned proceedings dated 23.07.2022 passed by respondent No.2 and the same is pending.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 challenging the impugned proceedings dated 23.07.2022 passed by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 will consider and dispose of the aforesaid appeal, in accordance with law, after putting the