Dismissed

Hamza Hazrami v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Telangana HC11 Sept 2020WP/7547/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking suspension of an arms license cancellation order. The Court held that the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act was available and preferred the appeal route over immediate high court intervention.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach the appellate authority within six weeks.

Hamza Hazrami Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 7547 OF 2020

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

Hamza Hazrami, S/o lr/osin Na ami, Aged 33 years, Occ.Business, N/o Armoor of Nizamabad District, R/o H.No.B-1-33213lAl10Bl A, Aravind Nagar Colony,Tolichowki. Hyderabad, Permanent R/o.H.No.2-1-2, Gole Banglow, Armoor (V and IV) Nizamabad

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, O/o the Commissioner of Police, Armoor, Nizamabad District.

¶14

The Additional Commissioner of Police, O/o the Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

¶15

The Station House Officer, Armoor, Nizamabad District

¶16

The Station House Officer, l,4ahadevpur Police Station, Jayashanker, Bhupalpally District, Karimnagar, Telangana State.

¶17

tr/d. Maqbool Ahmed Khan, S/o.Muneer Ahmed Khan, Age 42 years, Occ. Forest Beat Officer, Suraram of l,4ahadevpur (M), Jayashankar, Bhupalpally District.

¶18

lV/s. Asian Arms, Arms and Ammunition Dealers, Rep. by its Proprietor,# 4-1-727, beside Carrara Bank, Opp. I,4.J.1/arket, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 or dlrection more particularly one in the nature of Writ of [t4andamus declaring the action of the Respondent no.2 in passing orders vide Proc.No.G-17lArms- Nzbi20 l9 dated 19-02-2020 under section^'1 7 of the Arms Act 1 959 cancelling the Arms License of the Petitioner bearing No. NZB/347712013 and further directing the Petitioner to dispose of the weapon i.e.,NPB 30.06 Rifle No.0761055563 by IOF along with cartridges to any authorized dealer of license holder (Respondent No.7) within 10 days from the date of order as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural^justice and consequently direct the Respondent no.2 to renew the Arms License bearing No. NZB/347712013 of lhe petitioner.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶22

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 suspend the orders passed by Respondent No.2 Vide Proc. No. G-.1 7/ArmsNzb/2019 daled.1910212020 under section 17 of the Arms Act 1959 and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to renew the Arms License bearing No. NZB/3477/2013 of the petrtioner in the interest of the Justice

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P. VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: AGP FOR HOME

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: NONE APPEARED

¶26

'l hc (-ourt rnade tltc lirllo* ing: ORDEI{

¶27

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.7547 OF 2O2O

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

I-{c:rrd lcarned cr>unsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing lor respondenLs 1 to 5.

¶32

Petitioner is a Sportsman. He claimed to have participated ir-r several . Riffle Shooting Competitions. He applied for grant of Arms License for practicing Riifle Shooting and participating in the competitions. In due consideration of the said application, petitioner was granted Arms License bearing No.NZB 13477 l2Ol3 valid up to 13.06.2016. Petitioner applied for renewal of license. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, as required, along with the application for renewal, petitioner has also surrendered the u,eapon. The license u,as renewed by order dated 25.09.2017 for further period of three years commencing from the date of expiry of the previous license period. Petitioner applied for further renewal, which application is nou,rcjected bv the order impugned in this \vrit petition.

¶33

On i3.12.2019, shou, cause notice was issued to lhe petitioner as to vr.h1, license granted to the petitioner should not be suspended. On 29 .Ol .2O2O, petitioner olfered his explanation. Not satisfie d^q,ith the explanation offered by the petitioner, by order dated 19.02.2020 the license granted to the petitioner was suspended. Against the said order, remedy of appeal is provided unher Section 1 8 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for

¶34

short, 'the Act'). However, without availing the said remedy,^this writ petition is filed.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that crime was registered on 20.O3.2O17 in Mahadevpur Police Station of Jayashankar Bhupalpally District alleging that in violation of various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, certain persons entered into the protected forest area and sought to kill the prohibited u,ild animals. lnitially rvhen crime ra,as registered, petitioner was not implicated. Bttt, later on the confession of one of the accused, petitioner u,as arraved as A-9 and r,r,as arrested in April, 2017, later released on bail. Learned counsel further sought to contend that even though petitioner was no way concerned, he r,l,as r.l,rongl1, implicated and this fact was known to the authorities and therefore renewal of license was granted on 29 .O9.2O17 . Such renewal was after implication of the petitioner in the crime and therelore police were aware of involvement of the petitioner and having regard to the nature of involvement, the license was renewed. Learned counsel therefore sought to contend that there is no^{justification} to take a different view now and suspend the Arms License. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is a Sportsman and suspension of Arms License u'ould affect his career adversell, and that he u,ould give undertaking not to use ttre weapon lor anv other purpose other than for training and pa rt icipa t ion in the r'ompctit ions.

¶36

{

¶37

Admittedly, petitioner is implicated in a pending crime and it is at the stage of investigation. Therefore, at this stage, no opinion can be expressed on actual involvement of the petitioner. However, fact remains that petitioner is an accused and in response to the show cause notice, petitioner has not explained the conduct of not disclosing the involvement in the crime, '"r,hen he applied for rener,,'al, but only stated that he was u rongl_u- implicated.

¶38

Having rcgard to these facts, it cannot be said that the order of suspension of license is vitiated ex focie. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad, is not competent. Against the order passed under Section 17 of the Act, remedy of appeal is provided under Section 18 of the Act. Without availing the said remedy, petitioner ought not to have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court straight away. As per settled principle of law on parameters of judicial review and entertainment of writ petitions u,hen statutorily engrafted remedy of appeal is available, this Court is not inclined to entertain the rvrit petition.

¶39

At thls sLage, lcarned counsel for the petitioncr soughl to contend that petitioncr apprehends inordinate delay in processing his appeal and in such a case, his career would aclversell, affect and thereforc request thc Court to fix some time Iimited for disposal of the appeal.

¶40

Having rcgard to this request, while dismissing the writ petition, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail the remedy of

¶41

¶42

appeal and if such an appeal is preferred, the appellate authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six u'eeks from the date of receipt of appeal that may be filed by the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

¶43

To,

¶44

SD/-M.MANJULA ASSISTANT RdGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' Lt' C+r.=-SECTION OFFICER

¶45

One CC to Sri P Vamsheedhar Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl

¶46

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶47

Two CD Copies

)3jx

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110912020

ORDER

iA rC'
k
$
f,oo 21 SEP 2020
)
a' //
-.,",/
a) .\T
i_

¶54

WP.No.7547 o12020

¶55

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

/=<br>('^
Y*o.
At'4(iY

Hamza Hazrami v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamza Hazrami v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Konkala Suresh Vs The state of Telengana

Moarij Ahmed Khan Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Mathsya Parisramika Sahakara Sangam Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Bejugam Kavita , Laxmi, And 8 Others Vs Ms. Aisha Masarath Khanam, La.S., And 2 Others

S.Suresh Goud, Vs Dr. T.K. Sreedevi, I.a.S.and 2 others

Sri Veerabhadra Industries Vs Sri. Rajesh Tiwari IAS