Disposed

K.Muralidhar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Dec 2020WP/17041/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a declaration that the inaction of the District Collector regarding an arms licence renewal application was illegal. Upon establishing the application was rejected due to no threat, the court directed the respondent to communicate the rejection order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to communicate the order of rejection to the petitioner within two weeks.

K.Muralidhar Reddy, Vs The State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION No.17041 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This writ petition is filed seeking declaration that the inaction on the part of the 2^nd respondent-District Collector, YSR Kadapa District in considering the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of his arms licence, as illegal and contrary to Arms Rules 2016.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner that he was earlier granted a licence by the competent authority to possess NPB Revolver bearing Weapon No.P6147-2010 for a period of three years and at the time of expiry of the said period of licence, that he has submitted an application to the 2^nd respondent-District Collector, YSR Kadapa District with a request to renew the arms licence and that the 2^nd respondent is not considering the said application and not passing any orders on it. Therefore, the petitioner sought declaration that the said inaction on the part of the 2^nd respondent in not considering his renewal application as illegal and contrary to the Arms Rules.

¶6

Learned Government Pleader for Home on instructions would submit that the 2^nd respondent has in fact considered the said application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of his licence and as his enquiry revealed that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner at present, that his request for renewal of the said weapon licence has been turned down.

¶7

However, when questioned by the Court, whether the said order is communicated to the petitioner or not, learned

¶8

¶9

Government Pleader for Home would submit that there is no material on record in proof of service of the said order on the petitioner.

¶10

Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, as it is now brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleader for Home on instructions that the said representation of the petitioner for renewal of his licence was considered and rejected on the ground that there is no threat to his life at present, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to communicate the said order of rejection to the petitioner, giving liberty to the petitioner to question the said order in appropriate forum, if he feels aggrieved by the same.

¶11

Therefore, recording the aforesaid submission of the learned Government Pleader for Home that the application for renewal of the arms licence of the petitioner is considered and rejected, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to communicate the said order to the petitioner under proper acknowledgment within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order of rejection passed by the 2^nd respondent, he is at liberty to question the same by initiating appropriate proceedings to that effect as per law. No costs.

¶12

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶13

JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶14

Date : 08-12-2020 ARR

¶15

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.17041 OF 2020

¶19

Date : 08-12-2020

¶20

ARR

K.Muralidhar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Muralidhar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chukka Kanaka Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Gandluru Nageshwaramma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jammula Sivannarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Sreenivasulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhukya Lokeswara Rao, Vs Adothu Beemudu

Gandluru. Idayatulla, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh