IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.03.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

W.P.No.32720 of 2014

Singanamala Ramesh Babu

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government,

Home Department,

Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2.The Commissioner of Police,

Greater Chennai, Vepery,

Chennai-600 007.

... Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the

1^st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's statutory appeal

dated 16.09.2014, within a time frame as may be fixed by this

Court.

For Petitioner

: Mr.M.Kempraj

For respondents : Mr.S.Pattabiraman, GA

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying

for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent

to dispose of the petitioner's statutory appeal dated

16.09.2014, within a time frame.

2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it

has been averred by the petitioner as follows_

2-1.The petitioner is doing business as Film

Financier-cum-Producer, both in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.

Originally, the petitioner was having a Arm License

No.382/750/R1, which was possessed along with a Caliber 0.32 NP

Pistol No.564662. The petitioner was holding the license for

the past 6 years from 1993 to 1999. The said arm license was

regularly renewed once in three years without any default. The

said arm license had expired on 29.06.1999 and the petitioner

had applied for the renewal of the arm license vide application

dated 01.09.1999. Since there was no response from the 2^nd

respondent, again on 31.05.2000, the petitioner had sent another

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

application for the renewal of the same. As per the norms and

formalities, the petitioner had bondefidely deposited the said

weapon on 31.08.1999. The petitioner's application for renewal

was returned for want of signature. Hence, the renewal

application was resubmitted after completion of all the

formalities. The said application was submitted along with a

letter of condonation of delay of 65 days in filing the renewal

application. On 14.09.2000, a show cause notice was issued by

the 2^nd respondent in RC.No.E2(3)/642/65537/99, for which the

petitioner had replied on 04.10.2000. But, the 2^nd respondent

had rejected the renewal of the arm licence on 04.11.2000 vide

his proceedings in RC.No.E2(3)/642/65537/99.

2-2.Subsequently, the petitioner had to face

certain unforeseen circumstances and threats in pursuance of his

business transactions. Hence, the petitioner had once again

given a representation on 16.08.2012 to the 2^nd respondent along

with a fresh application for arm license, either to be

considered as fresh application or renewal of the arm licence

which was already expired. The respondent vide his proceedings

in Rc.No.E2(3)/309/118386/2012 and No.03/R1/Licence/13 had

called upon the petitioner to give reply as to why his request

for grant of fresh arm licence should not be rejected.

According to the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent had gone beyond

the scope of the issuance of show cause notice, wherein he had

given a finding which is pre-determined that the petitioner is

not facing any threat in Chennai and that his earlier licence

was also cancelled due to non-renewal in time. However,

in due compliance with the show cause notice, the petitioner

gave a reply on 04.02.2013 to the 2^nd respondent. On 04.06.2013,

two police officials from the Intelligence Department of the 2^nd

respondent's office had enquired the petitioner with respect to

the arm license and also about the threat. However, the 2^nd

respondent passed an order on 15.08.2014 rejecting the

petitioner's application. Subsequent to the order of rejection,

within the statutory period of 30 days, the petitioner filed an

appeal on 16.09