Allowed

Eluri Sreenivasa Rao v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC2 Dec 2020WP/18219/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner challenged the Commissioner of Police's order rejecting his arms license renewal due to pending criminal charges. The High Court held that mere pending charges do not justify refusal under the Arms Act, especially when acquittal exists for other charges, rendering the order illegal and unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed pending miscellaneous petitions are closed

Eluri Sreenivasa Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 2… — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Ju risdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

wRrr PETTT|oN NO. 18219 0F 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Eluri Sreenivasa Rao, S/o. Jogaiah, Age 51 years, President, Telangana Non Gazetted Officers Association,^(Regd. No. 71 9/201 4), Khammam, Khammam District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Director General of Police, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Khammam.

¶13

,..RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of [t4andamus declaring the orders passed by the 3'd Respondent Commissioner of Police, Khammam, tn C.No.'l49.lV'1/2019 dt.'l 5.09.2020 rejecting the application of the petitioner for renewal of arms license as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 21 of Constitution of lndia and contrary to the provisrons of Arms Act and contrary to the law laid down by the High Court in 2012 (1) ALT 579, 2017 (5) ALT 12 and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for renewal of Arms License bearing No.121 5/KIVM/2009 dt.12.11.2009 with all further renewal.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the clrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue lnterim Direction directing the 3'd respondent to forthwith re-consider the issue of renewal of Arms License based on the renewal application filed by the petitioner d1.26.08.2019 keeping in view of the law laid down by the High Court in 2012 (1) AIT 579,2017 (5) ALT^'12 forthwith pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue lnterim Direction suspending operation of the orders passed by the 3'd respondent in C.No.149/M/2019 dt.15.09.2020 rejecting the renewal of Arms License pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. V. RAMANA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

?NR.J tYP NO.l)t)19 ol -,tJ20

¶23

¶24

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO.18219 OF 2O2O

¶26

ORAL ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned counsel for petitioner an(l le:lrned Assistzint Government Pleader lor Home.

¶28

Petitioner is rvorking as Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Chandragonda m:rndal, Kothaguclem district. Facts as averred in the u,rit petition u,ould disclose that in the year 2OO8 petitioner was elected as President of Khammam District Telangana Non Gazetted Officers' House Building Cooperative Society Limited for a period of 5 years; In the year 20 19, he was elected as President of Telangana Non Gazetted Officers' Association (Central Association, Hyderabad) for a period of 3 years; In the year 2Ol7, he was elected as President of Khammam District Government Employees' Cooperative Credit and Thrift Societ)., I(hammam. On 17.8.2009 he has submitted application to grant Arm license for self protection and vide orders dated 12.11.2OO9 Arm License rvas granled to the pctitioner for a^period of one year from 12. 11 .2OO9 . The Arm License^{was renewed from} time to time; vide orders dated 25.3.2011 for a^{period of 3 years;} vide orders dated 2.1.2074 for a period ol further three 1,ears;^and vide orders dated 20.12.2016 it was renet'ed for a^{furtherperiod of} 3 years i.e., from 13.11.2016 to 12.11.2019.^{On 26.8.2019} petitioner applied for renewal of his Arm License.^{As there was no} response to his request, he submitted^{reminders dated3.3.2020,} 29.6.2020 and 25.8.2020. By decision^{dated15.9.2O2O,impugned} in this writ petition, the Commissioner^{of Police rejectedthe} request of the petitioner to rene^' the^{ArmLicence on the ground}

¶29

¶30

PNR.J WP i'O.lil] l9 ol )D0

¶31

he was involvcd in two crimes i.e., Crime No. 128 of 20 I I under Sections 186, 506 read u'ilh 34 IPC of Khammam I Tou,n Police Station and Crime No.92 of 2019 under Sections I2OB, 415, 428, 42O,46a,469,47O,406, 508 read with 34 IPC and Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C of Khammam II Tou,n Police Station.

¶32

According to learned counsel for petitioner, rejection of the request of the petitioner to renew the Arm License is ex-facie illegal. Mere involvement in a crime is not a ground to refuse renewal of Arm License. He further submitted that out of two crimes registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 128 of 201 1 petitioner was already acquitted, therefore, it cannot be referred to any more and Crime No. 92 of 2019 is the only one crime which is pending and pendency of said crime is not a ground to refuse renewal. According to learned counsel still therc is threat perccption on petitioner and to protect his life, he needs Arm License and denying the same is ex facie illegal. By referring to the averme nts made in paragraph- 1 1 of the counter affidavit, he submits that for the first time a ne$'reason is assigned in support of the decision to reject the request of the petitioner for renewal of Arm License. In paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit, deponent relers to Vigilance Enquiry report submitted to the Government in the year 2016 by the Director General (Vigilance and Enforcement) on the allegations in TNGOs Housing Board Cooperative Society of Khammam. He would submit that after this report, Arm License rvas renerved by proceedings dated 20.11.2016. Thus, it cannot be the basis to reject the request for renewal. He further submitted that even assuming that said reason is valid, as the same \'as not stated in the order impugned, it cannot be stated to

¶33

¶34

validate the decision by supplementing the reasons in^{the counter} aflidavit and same is not permissible in lau,.

¶35

In support of his contention that decision to reject the reneu,al is ex facie illegal and contran' to the settled principles of law, learned counsel placed reliance on two decision rendered b1, this Court in L.Raghunath Reddy Vs. District Collector, Anantapur Districtl and Vegi Jagadish Kumar Vs. State of A.P.2.

¶36

According to learned Assistant Government Pleader, writ petitioner without availing the remedy of appeal instituted the writ petition. Thus, writ petition is not maintainable. Against the order of Commissioner of Police, remedy ol appeal is available under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, 'Act, 1959') and same is effective and efficacious remedy. He submits that all the contentions urged herein can be raised in the appeal.

¶37

In re ply, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that very objection u'as raised in Vegi Jagadish Kumar (supra), but this Court having lound patent illegality in the rejection of the request for renerval of Arm License, considered the u'rit petition on its merits. He further submits that as rejection rs ex facie contrary to Section 14 of the Act, 1959 petitioner need not be compelled to avail the remedy of appeal. There is no bar in entertaining the writ petition merely on the ground of availability of statutory remedy of appeal.

¶38

The reason for refusal of renewal of Arm License is on the ground of involvement of petitioner in tu'o crimes. Respondents do '^{:o E} 1t1^{eLl slo} t to r (5) .tLT tl

¶39

PNR,J wP NO.l82l9 ol)024

¶40

)

¶41

not dispute that petitioner was acquitted in Crime No.128 of 2Oll. Once acquittal is granted by competent Court, it cannot be relied upon. Thus, as of nou,only one crime i.e., Crime No.92 of 2O19 is pending at thc stage of investigation. In other rvords, rejection of the renewal is only on the ground of his involvement in Crime No.92 of 2O19. Section 13 of the Act, 1959 deals with grant of license and Section 143 of the Act, i959 deals with refusal to grant license. According to Clause-(b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, 1959, request to grant license can be rejected, firstly when the licensing authority has reason to believe that he is prohibited by the Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring or having in possession or carrying any Arm or Ammunition; secondly, if person is found to be of unsound mind; and thirdly for any reason, the person is found to be unfit for a License under the Act. Sub-clause (ii) of Clause-(b) vests power in the Licensing Authority to reject the license on the ground of security of public pcace or for public safety.

¶42

Juxtaposing the requirements of Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act, 1959 r'ith reasons assigned in the impugned order, it is apparent that reason for rejection is not on the grounds mentioned in Section 14. Mere involvement in a crime, it cannot be assumed

¶43

I -S.14. Rcfusalofliceoccs -

¶44

(l) Nolwilhslanding anrlhing in section 13. the liccnsing aulhqrit) shall refuse to granl(a) a liccnce under scctioD l. section 4 or section 5 where such licence is rcqujred in rcspect ofany prohibilcd anns or prohibiled ammunition; (b) a licence in any otbel case under Chapter ll,(i) wher€ such licence is l'equired by a person whom the licensing authoriry has reason to belicvo( I ) to be prchibited by this Act or by any other law for thc time being in force Fom acquiring, having in his c nling an) ams orarnrnunirion. or (2) to be ofunsound mind, or

¶45

(3) to be for any reason unfit for a liccnce under this Act; or

¶46

(ii) where the licensing autholity deems it nc.essary for the secuity of the public peace or for public safety gmnl such licence.

¶47

(2) Thc licensing authority shnll nol rc,irsc to gritnt any I;cencc to any penion rnerely on the ground thal such peNon docs not own or possess sulllcient prcpelty.

¶48

(l) Where thc lice,rsing autlro ty reluscs lo gmnt a licencc lo any pcrson il shall relord io writing lhe reasons for such rclusal and fumrsll 1o thal pcrson on dcnlard a bricf sraremonl of rhe same unless in any casc lhe Iicensing authonry is ol' lhe opinion that il will rol bc iD thc puhlic rntcresr io lurnish such statenrcnt^'

¶49

P.\RJ |'P ',O tx) 19 0t :t)0

¶50

¶51

that he is a bad person. Section 14 does not envisage rejection on that ground. It is not the case of rt'sponde'nts that petiLioner misused gun license. It is also not the casc- of respondents that giving Arm License to petitioner u,ould be detrimental to securit)'of public peace or public safety would be disturbed.

¶52

In L,Raghunath Reddy, learned single Judge of this Court

¶53

considered this aspect and held as under:

¶54

"7. ....... lt, therefore, follows that there should be credible material before the licensing autlority, for him, to come to the conclusion that the security of public peace or public safety, is likely to be disturbed by a person to whom a license is granted. And only in such circumstances, a license can be refused to such a person, even if such a person does not attract any of the rest of the prohibitions contained in the Act for being granted the license. Public peace and public safety are not liable to be allowed to be shat(ered by anyone, all the more so, because he has been granted a license to carry or possess a firearm or ammunition. The assessment of the potential threat to public peace and public safery at the hands oI the applicant, cannot be assumed as a matter of course- There should be a valid and reasonable basis for such an apprehension in the mind of the licensing authority to exist, but a mere involvemcnt in a criminal case or cases is no pointer to the potential threat to public peace or public sa[ety. Viewed from this perspective, the fact that in 7 criminal cases, the petitioner has already becn acquitted, must enrlre to thc benefit of the arpplicant / petitioner.'

¶55

1O. It is thus seen that the reason assigned for not accepting the request of the petitioner to rene\, arm liccnse is ex facie illegal and unsustainable.

¶56

1 1. Even assuming that reason for decision can be supplemented in the form of counter affidavit, by bringing out a new fact, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, after the said Vigilance Report, license was renewed for a further period of three years. It has nothing to do with renewal of arm license. Thus, same also cannot be the basis to refuse renewal of arm license.

¶57

It is thus seen that the reasons assigned in support of the decision to reject request for rene\val of arm license is unsustainable and ex facie illegal.

¶58

t{P NO 1u219 of2020

¶59

In Vegi Jagadish Kumar, learned Government Pleader raised objection on the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that Section 18 of the Act, provides efficacious remedy in the form of appeal. The Court having found that the order of refusal to grant license was vitiated, it has brushed aside the objection and allou,ed the writ petition. In that case, rejection was on the ground that petitioner \,as involved in three crimes. In L.Raghunath Reddy, learned single Judge considered t$,o u'rit petitions filed by father and son challenging the order of refusal to renew the Arm License on the ground that they were involved in crimes and held the decision as il1ega1. I am in respectlul agreement with the said view.

¶60

Following the above decisions, the objection on not availing the remedy of appeal, in the facts of this case, is rejected as the order impugned is found ex facie illegal and unsustainable.

¶61