Disposed

Mohammed Muzammil Ahmed v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Dec 2023WP/21026/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court set aside an order rejecting an arms licence application by a registered shooter. The court held the impugned memo was bereft of reasons and violated natural justice. It directed the authorities to examine the case after a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Memo dated 20.05.2023 setting aside; direction to examine case after personal hearing within two months.

Mohammed Muzammil Ahmed Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21026 0F 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Muzammil Ahmed, S/o.Abdul Qadeer,Age about 37 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 9-4-771A1159, Al Hasnath Colony,^- Golconda, Hyderabad, Telangana-500008.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderbad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an Order, Direction or a Writ more particular one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS'declaring order vide Memo No. 11733lArmsl2O22 dt. 20.O5.2O23 issued by the Respondent who rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of fresh Arms License to possess two weapons i.e. 1) NPB Handgun and 2) NPB Rifle with area validity to Throughout lndla for Sports Purpose under Aspiring shooter category as illegal, arbitrary, against the constitution of lndia and violation of Article '14, 19,20 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and set askle the same

¶15

lA NO:^'l OF 2023

¶16

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 direct the respondent to issue a fresh Arms License to possess two weapons i.e. 1) NPB Handgun and 2) NPB Rifle and Ammunition quota with area validity to "Throughout lndia "for Sports Purpose under "Aspiring Shooter" category

¶17

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MUNEER BASHA SHAIK

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

-7

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.21026 OF 2023

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

¶26

"......[o issue an Order Direction or a Wit more particular one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring order uide Memo No.11733/Arms/ 2022 dated 20.05.2023 issued bg the Respondent uho rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of fresh Arms Licence to possess tuo ueapons i.e. 1) NPB Handgun and 2) NPB RiJle uith area ualidity to "Throughout India" for Sports Purpose under "Aspiing shooter" category as illegal, arbitrary, against the Constitution of India and uiolation of Article 14 19 20 and 21 of the Constitution of Indta and set aside the same......"

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that he is representing Telangana

¶28

State in Shooting Championship competitions and participated in the VIII Telangana State Championship competitions Rifle/Pistol Events held from 1.t August to 7th AuSust, 2022 at Sports Authority of Telangana State (SATS) and secured 542/600 in Match No. (S.01) 50m Rifle prone (NR) championship men individual and 245/300 in Match No. (-39) 25m Standard Pistol (NR) championship men individual. It is the further case of the petitioner that for participating regularly in the shooting competitions, he submifted an application for fresh arms licence to possess two weapons i.e., 1) NPB Handgtrtand 2) NPB Rifle and ammunition quota with area

¶29

¶30

¶31

validity^"Tfuoughout India" for sports PurPose^{under aspiring} shooter category for target practice^{to represent Telangana State in} upcoming National & Zonal^{shootingcompetitions. It is thef urther} case o[ the petitioner that^{as per RuIe 14 of the ArtnsAct Rules,} 2076, on receipt of an aPPlication for^{grant of Arms[icence,the} licencing authority shall call for a^{report of the officerin-charge of} the concerned territorial police station^{on that application andsuch} officer shall send his report in Form 94^{within a period of 30 days} from the date of receipt of the application^{and the concernedofficer} in-charge of Golconda Police Station has made^{detailedenquiry and} submitted a report to DCP West Zone recommending^{the name of} the petitioner for granting fresh arms licence.

¶32

It is the further case of the petitioner^{that respondent No.2}

¶33

zride Lr.No.L&O/ Arms-3/0111,/2023, dated 06.05.2023^directedhim to appear for interview along with all the relevant documents^to decide his eligibility^(or granting arms licence and pursuant^{to the} directions of respondent No.2, he appeared before^{respondent No.2} and on being not convinced, respondent No.2 uidc^Memo No.11733lArms / 2022, dated 20.05.2023, rejected his^application

¶34

¶35

without assigning any reasons as required under Section^{14 of the} Arms Act, 1959 (for short'the Act') and the Rules^{made thereunder.}

¶36

Learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for Home appearing} for respondent Nos.1 and 2^{submits that the} Petitioner^{has not} satisfied all the requirements^{under the provisions of the Act, and} as such, respondent No.2 has rejected^{the case of the petitioner for} granting arms licence.

¶37

\ \

¶38

Af ter careful examination of the^{impugnedproceedings,} dated 20.05.2023 passed by^{respondentNo.1, this Court is of the} opinion that the proceedings^{passed byrespondentNo.1} confirming report of respondent^{No.2, is bereft of any reasons and} respondent No.1 has not^{mentioned reasons independently for} rejecting the appeal, excePt^{stating that respondentNo.2 has not} recommended for granting^{of arms licence to the petitioner, which} amounts to gross^{violationof principlesof natural justice and the} same are liable to^{be set aside and accordingly,the memo,dated} 20.05.2023 passed by^{respondent No.1 is set aside.}

¶39

In view of the same, this^{Court deems it appropriate to} dispose of this writ petition^{directingrespondentNo'1 to examine} the case of the petitioner^{after providingpersonal hearingto the}

¶40

¶41

petitioner and pass orders within a Period^{of two (2) months from} the date of receipt of copy of this order, strictly^{in accordancewith}

¶42

the Act, and the Rules made thereunder and if^{the petitionerfulfills}

¶43

all the requirements for granting arms Iicence^{undersportsquota,}

¶44

the case of the petitioner may be considered for^{granting arms}

¶45

licence.

¶46

With the above observations, this writ petition^{is disposedof.}

¶47

No order as to costs.

¶48

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if^any,pending

¶49

shall stand closed.

¶50

sD/.P 3!iS+fmE3!lHiA //TRUE^coPY// secn$(orHcEn

¶51

To,

¶52

¶53

l.ThePrincipalsecretary,Home(Arms)Department,secretariat,

¶54

aif*Hffi |*s}?81',fl5traift^{il,i?*3fl iall['"'J'3f;orreransana'at}

¶55

g'"'""SttS t?Y.tlnut= BASHA^{sHArK' Advocate[.PUC]}

¶56

^ 5. Two^{CD CoPies}

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811212 23

lil

ORDER

ilt, :{ liit rWP.No.21026 bf2023

¶63

1H E STA 14:
k
oo 3 [ ,iAN 202f C
{'
*
ocsp ^rT Cd cO

¶64

I
rl
,tl
ii

¶65

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶66

a ceg&+ \cr vlr^,Y

Mohammed Muzammil Ahmed v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Muzammil Ahmed 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thota Sulochana Vs The State of Telangana

Akbar Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Palle Suguna Vs The State of Telangana

Velijala Karthik Vs The State of Telangana

Mirza Basheer Baig Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Ashraf Vs The District Collector