Ganta Sadanandam Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

132171

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:2157 6 0F 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ganta Sadanandam, S/o.^{pochanna,_aged} about 70 years, Caste. SC, Occ. Advocate, Ex-Pubric^prosecutor and'Ex--ziila parisnad bh;irdr1,-iilo.'Iiroor, Nizambad District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND1 I!: 9t*q of _Tetap.qnq, Rep..by. its principal Secretary, Department of

¶11

Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector-and Magistrate. Nizambad.

¶13

The Station House Officer, Aiinoor, Nizambad District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High^-ciurt may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction more^{-particularly} one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondenti herein in cancelling the license of the petitioner vide No. c1l2i38i2015-M, dated. 2811112015, herein as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles. 14,21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents to renew the license.

¶16

lA NO: 1 oF 2022

¶17

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 impugned proceedings vide No. c1121381201s-Hil, oiteo 28t11t2015 pending disposal of this Writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V RAGHUNATH

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondents No 1 & 3: SRI MR D PRADEEP AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No 2 : Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.21576 OF 2022

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief

¶24

"Io rssue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more pafiicularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declarin(l the action of respondents herein in canceling the license of the petitioner vide No.C1/2138/2015-M, dated 28.1 1 2015, herein as being illegal, arbitraqt, discrimitntoty and violative of Articles 14, 21 of the Constitutjott of lndia and conseqLlently direct lhe respondents to rertew the license.. .. . .. ..."

¶25

2.1 Mr. V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been an armslicense holder since 2009. A renewal application was submitted on 20.08.20'l 5; however, the Collector and District ttlagistrate, by proceedings dated 28.11.2015, declined to renew the license on the grounds of the petitioner's age, alleged ill-health, and an adverse report from the lnspector of Police, P.S. Armoor stating that no threat to the petitioner existed. Contending that the impugned order is without any tenable basis, arbitrary, and

¶26

2

¶27

unsupported by law, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to renew the license.

¶28

2.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further argues that the authority has invoked Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 for refusing renewal. However, neither advanced age nor general health concerns are statutorily recognized grounds under Section 17(3) for revocation or refusal of renewal. lt is submitted that such considerations must have demonstrable and substantive nexus with public safety or misuse of arms, which is conspicuously absent in the present case.

¶29

3.1. Conversely, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that respondent No. 2 has filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner, aged about 69 years and allegedly suffering from health problems, is incapable of safely handling a weapon. Further, the lnspector of Police reported that the petitioner does not face any threats, and hence renewal was rightly refused.

¶30

3.2. He also points out that a show-cause notice^dated '19.10.2015 had been issued, to which the petitioner responded on^'16.11.2015. Therefore, the petitionerwas^given an opportunity

¶31

\ \

¶32

3

¶33

of hearing, and a^{reasoned decision was thereafter passed'} Accordingly, the^{impugned order, being justified and based on} available^{material,does not warrant interference'}

¶34

4.' I have carefully^{perused the record.}

¶35

lt is^{undisputedthat respondentNo' 2 revoked the} petitioner's arms license^{citing advancedage, ill-health,and the} lnspector of Police's^{report that the petitioner does not face any} threat.Thelnspector'sreportmerelystatesthatthepetitioneris elderly, has unspecified^{health problems,and may be unableto} carry or operate^{the weapon.However,the reportdoes not} furnish^particulars or^{medicalassessmentregarding the} petitioner's physical condition.^{Similarly,the conclusionthat the} petitioner faces no threat is^{stated without supportingmaterial,} parameters, or inquirY details.

¶36

A show-cause^{notice dated 19.10.2015,issued on nearly} identical^{grounds, was answered by the petitioner on 16 11'2015'} wherein he categorically^{statedthat he suffers from no health} issues, is capable of^{handling a weapon, and is willing to undergo} a medical examination.^{He also asserted that he had received} threatening calls from^{Naxalitesand continued to facedanger'}

¶37

4

¶38

Despite these representations, the impugned order merely reiterates the earlier grounds without independent analysis, corroboration, or application of mind. The Licensing Authority has simply reproduced the lnspector's report without exercising its own statutory discretion.

¶39

The primary grounds relied upon age and ill-health are not per se grounds under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 for revocation or refusal of renewal. Any refusal must satisfy the statutory test: that continuance of the license is^{"against public} peace or public safety" or that renewal is otherwise^"necessary for security of public peace or public safety." Courts have consistently held that a licensing authority must apply independent^judgment and base decisions on cogent material (see KarTash Nath v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 All 297). Mechanical reliance on^police reports, without critical evaluation, constitutes non-application of mind and renders the order unsustainable.

¶40

Further, when the petitioner disputes the alleged health issues and volunteers for medical examination, the licensing authority is obligated to verify such claims through a competent medical officer. This is essential because physical incapacity can

\ \

5

II r]

justify refusal only if it demonstrably affects safe handling^{of arms,} which must be medically^{established. No such assessmenthas} been undertaken in the^{present case.}

¶45

Regarding threat^{perception,the law requiresa reasoned} and evidence based determination,^{not a bare conclusion.A mere} sentence stating the^{petitioner has "no threats"does not meet the} standard of administrative^{fairness or satisfy the requirement of a} reasoned.order mandated under^{Article14 of the Constitution.} The impugned order lacks the essential^{elements of independent} evaluation, adequate inquiry, and^articulation of^{reasons. Such} lacunae amount to arbitrariness, as held in Mohinder^{Singh Gillv.} Chief Election Commissioner,^{(1978) 1} SCC^{405, where the} Supreme Court emphasized that administrative^{orders must stand} or fall on the reasons recorded therein.

¶46

ln lighl of the above deficiencies, the^{impugned orderfails} to withstand^judicial scrutiny and is liable to be set aside.^The renewal application of the^petitioner is accordingly restored to the file of respondent No. 2. The District Collector and Magistrate/Commissioner of Police is directed to reconsider the application afresh, undertake requisite medical and threat-

*1

6

(^'

perception assessments, apply independent discretion, and pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law within six weeks

¶51

from the date of receipt of this order.

¶52

tl. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to