Disposed

Mohammed Qayyum Baig v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2025WP/26725/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions for grant of an arms license for sports under the Aspiring Shooter Category after his representation went unaddressed. Following counsel's reference to a similarly disposed writ petition, the court disposed of this petition directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 07-05-2025.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to consider petitioner's representation dated 07-05-2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within stipulated time.

Mohammed Qayyum Baig Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^3255]

¶2

oF :ELANGANA rN rHE^HrGH "o'T{fl $o'J*toBtio'.E (SPecial^{Original Jurisdrctron'}

¶3

MoNDAY,^{THE EIGHTHDAYoF -s-EPrFyut*} '"'"'t*o''',ousAND AND^TwENTYFlvt

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE^{HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICEN'V'SHRAVANKUMAR} WRIT^{PETITIONNO267250F2025}

¶6

""'*""nlonr-ed eayyum Bais, s/o rvronaqlef, $Sffi !ft: " - ,ffEo""i"t?ltt'n1 pE,r,oNER [iis,;:sf,]$:a:';A:lrlffi^'"'ti{'"[1"nxoJI;r;

¶7

AND

¶8

1 The State^{of Telangana' Rep by its Principal Secretary (Home) Secretariat}

¶9

a ?lfPf:[.},li?^{ffi :::;r,,1}1.'"'ifl033i'} "" s tat^o n'. "'::[ ]':*1, * *

¶10

Petition^{underArticle 226 of Ihe Constitutronof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filedtherewith'the High Court may be} pleased to^{rssue writ, order or direction more particularryqne in the nature of} Writ of^{lrlandamus declaringthe action of the Respondents'more particularly} Respondent^{NO l in sltting wer the petitioner's applicationfor the past 4 months} and not^{granting Arms License for Sports to the petitioner for pan lndia Level} under^{Aspiring Shooter Categoryto hold NP Bore Rifle' by virtue of Chapterlll'} Special^{Categoriesof Licences' i e} '^{Section-36 and 40 of the Arms Rules'2016'} despite the^{petitioner herein making a representationdated 07-05-2025'along} withthedetailedapplication'andpaymentoffeesasiltegal'arbitrary'inviolation of Arms^{Act, 1959, in violationof Articles 14'19 and 21 of Constitutionof lndia' in} violation of^{Principlesof Natural Justiceand consequently to directthe} respondent^{No.1 herein to grant Arms License for Sports to the petitioner for pan} lndia Level^{under AspiringShooter Categoryto hold NP Bore Rifle' by virtue of} Chapter lll,^{Special Categoriesof Licences' ie ' Section-36and 40 of the Arms} Rules, 20.16,^{as well as in termsof Ir'4inistry of HomeAffairsNotification}

¶11

No.S O.665(E) dated 12_02_2020 by considering the petitioner,s application and representation dated 07- OS_2025.

¶12

IANo; 10F 2025

¶13

petition under Sec in the circumstances srared in rhe affidavit rir"d i" ;;;::fr}::':r:i P+:(rtron' lne High court may be pteased ro p: direct :; the l'x respondent :] r^j;; ," , ;^::: .[*i :T#j#i,^{::::; :,JT} : : fi^j]: 40 of the Arms Rures, 2016, as welr as in terms es, i.e., Sectron_36 and dated 12-02-20,0 oi :j,llil TJH,::,::: ];j:::H.}" :;j:T' writ petition. etion dated 07-05-2025 pending disposal of the above

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner counser r.,.,r," n".pJ,;:"?I'ffi,#_lfJilpER REDDy

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

I l i I I I

I l

THE^{HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEN'V. SIIRAVAN KUMAR} w.P.No^{.26725of.2o25}

¶20

oRDER:

¶21

---^-'lent^N <^{o 1 in sittingoverthe} Questioning^{the action of the respondent} petitioner's^{applicationlbr the past 4 mollths and not granting Arms} License^{for Sports to the petitioner for Pan lndia Level under Aspiring} Shooter^{Category to hold NP Bore Rifle' by virtue of Chaptct III'} Special^{Categories of Licences'i'e' ' Section36 and 40 of ttre Arms} Rules,^{2O16,despitethe petitioner making a represcnLaLion dated} 07 .O5.2o25,along^{with the detailedapplication and payn-ren[of fces} petitioner^{filed the presentwrit petitionwith a consequential prayer to} clirect^{the respondent No1 to grant Arms License'}

¶22

for hearrng, the matter^{has been takenuP} 2. TodaY,^when that^similar for the Petitioner^{wouid submit} the learned^counsel subject^{matter in W'P No 1248 8 of 2025 has been clisposedof by this} Court^{directingthe respondentNo'1 to dispose of thJ r"pt""tntation} d.ated 21.08-2024^{trrerein within four weeks in accordance with law} and this^{writ petitionmay also be disposed of in terms of the said writ} petitron.

¶23

3 The learned^{AssistantGovernment Pleader for Home does not} dispute the^sarne.

¶24

In that view of^{the matter, w'ithout going into the mcritsof the} case, this writ^{petitionis disposed of directingthe respondent No'1} to consider thc representation^{datcd 07.o5.2025 o[ the petitioncr and}

pass appropriatc orders ;::.':;:ji: ":; H:::,::;:':,' "^.-,'", ;:j:::":

¶30

Asa sequel, miscellancous appiications, ;1 any pending, shall stand closed

¶31

SD/-P P NNA KRISHNA ASSI T REGIST RAR

¶32

//TRUE COPY// To TION OFFICER p Telangana 1. The^prtnci al Secretary (Home) Secretariat Building, Hyd erabad, State of 32 The Co mm issioner of Poiice, Hyderabad 4 The lnspector of po lice, Ba njara Hilts police Station Hyderabad Distri ct 5. One CC to SRt KATIKA RAVINDER RED DY, Advocate [OPUC HyderabadTwo CCs to Gp louTlFOR HOI\4E, High Court for the State of Telangana, at 6.7 wo CD Cop les PSK. GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:08 tOgt2OZs

ORDER

WP.No.26t2i ot 2O2S

;4d'' "=;;i ch
(f
1 E SE P zffi
,l
L),'//
1=

o s I C €,c

¶40

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶41

q
b

Mohammed Qayyum Baig v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Qayyum Baig 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

Lunar Loft Cafe and Kitchens Vs The State of Telangana

G. Manjula Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Raziya Vs The state of Telangana

Komira Soujanya Vs The State of Telengana

Kummari Pushpa Vs The State of Telangana

Jameela Begum Vs The State of Telangana