Disposed

Puppala Rajani Kanth v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Mar 2018WP/43856/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Horizontal Order directs the respondents to dispose of a W.P. challenging inaction on an arms licence application by passing appropriate orders within three months. The court noted a shift in jurisdiction from the District Magistrate to the Police Commissioner due to the Police Commissionerate upgradation and the pendency issue.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pass appropriate orders on petitioner's weapon licence application preferably within three months.

Puppala Rajani Kanth Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

W .P.No.4 3 8 5 6 of 2 0 1 7

¶3

ORDER : -

¶4

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶5

The alleged inaction on the part of the 3^rd respondent in issuing Weapon Licence, inspite of the recommendation and enquiry report submitted by the 4^th respondent is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

¶6

A counter affidavit is filed by the Asst.Commissioner of Police, Hanamkonda, Warangal City stating that in view of the upgradation of the Office of the Superintendent of Police to the Police Commissionerate, the power to grant arms license is now conferred on the Police Commissioner.

¶7

Paragraph nos.7 and 8 of the said counter affidavit read as

¶8

under: -

¶9

“I submit that, previously the power to grant arms license was vested with the District Magistrate i.e., District Collector, Warangal and after the upgradation of the Office of Superintendent of Police to Police Commissionerate, the power to grant arms license is vested with the Commissioner of Police. The pendency of the application of the petitioner for arms license came to the knowledge of the Commissionerate only after receiving the notices in the aforesaid Writ Petition.

¶10

I further submit that after receiving the application in the Commissionerate it is found that the application pertains to February, 2015. There is a gap of more than three years, from the date or submission of application to the present date. So a

¶11

¶12

fresh threat perception report is being called for, after receiving the report, the application of the petitioner will be disposed of.”

¶13

Having regard to the above said averments and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court deems it fit and proper to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶15

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

______________ A.V.Sesh a Sai, J Date: 12.03.2018 smr

Puppala Rajani Kanth v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puppala Rajani Kanth v. The State of Telangana

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

P. Nagabhushana Rao Vs The union of india

Muralidhar Rudraboina Vs The State of Telangana

D. Ramesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ambujalapu Ramakrishna Vs State of Telangana

K.Rajaji, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Sadu Naga Venkata Lakshmi Sujana Devi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh