Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 230 (TS)

K. Raghavendra Rao v. State of Telangana

2019-06-11

A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY

body2019
ORDER : 1. These writ petitions are taken-up together because the common issue involved in these cases is regarding revocation of arms licences granted to them under provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 Act on the ground that there is no threat perception to the petitioners. 2. In W.P. No. 8834 of 2019, initially licence was granted to the petitioner in the year 2012 for a period of three years and the same was renewed upto 2018 and he applied for renewal. In W.P. No. 2673 of 2019, the petitioner also applied for renewal of arms licence after expiry of his licence, the licensing authority called for report in both the cases from the concerned authorities and after obtaining reports, show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners as to why their licences should not be revoked by exercising powers under Section 17 of the Arms Act (for short “the Act”) and the petitioners submitted explanation. But without considering the same in proper perspective, only on the ground that petitioners do not have threat perception, the impugned orders have been passed revoking the arms licences purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 17 of the Act. 3. In W.P. No. 2673 of 2019, counter-affidavit is filed reiterating the contents of the impugned order and justifying the action on the ground that petitioner does not have threat perception and he is not entitled for renewal of arms licence and it is also asserted that the petitioner has alternative remedy against the impugned order. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in both writ petitions submits that the arms licences of the petitioners can be revoked only when their case falls under the parameters laid down in Section 17 of the Act and they submit that no criminal cases were registered against the petitioners and there are no complaints against the petitioners regarding misuse of weapons. The very basis for revoking of arms licences is nonexistent in the parameters contained under Section 17 of the Act, as such, the competent authority cannot assume jurisdiction to revoke the arms licences. When the competent authority exercises power beyond the parameters contained under the Act, the same is without jurisdiction and more so, explanation of the petitioners was not considered in proper perspective, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. As such, the writ petitions can be entertained. 5. When the competent authority exercises power beyond the parameters contained under the Act, the same is without jurisdiction and more so, explanation of the petitioners was not considered in proper perspective, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. As such, the writ petitions can be entertained. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits the petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy against the impugned orders and he also submits that since there is no threat perception to the petitioners, petitioners do not require any arms licences and the respondent-authorities after issuing show-cause notices, considering the explanations submitted by them passed the impugned orders. As such, the same cannot be interfered with, since there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Section 17 of the Arms Act reads as under: 17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences: (1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence-holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice. (2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed. (3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence: (a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act. (b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence. (c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it. (d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened. (c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it. (d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened. (e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence. (4) The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof. (5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefor and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement. (6) The authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate may by order in writing suspend or revoke a licence on any ground on which it may be suspended or revoked by the licensing authority and the foregoing provisions of this section shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the suspension or revocation of a licence by such authority. (7) A Court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder may also suspend or revoke the licence: Provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void. (8) An order of suspension or revocation under sub-section (7) may also be made by an appellate Court or by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision. (9) The Central Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, suspend or revoke or direct any licensing authority to suspend or revoke all or any licences granted under this Act throughout India or any part thereof. (10) On the suspension or revocation of a licence under this section the holder thereof shall without delay surrender the licence to the authority by whom it has been suspended or revoked or to such other authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of suspension or revocation. 7. (10) On the suspension or revocation of a licence under this section the holder thereof shall without delay surrender the licence to the authority by whom it has been suspended or revoked or to such other authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of suspension or revocation. 7. Section 17(3) of the Arms Act gives the power to the competent authority to revoke the arms licences granted by them subject to conditions envisaged therein. A reading of the impugned orders goes to show that arms licences are revoked only on the ground that there is no threat perception to the petitioners, but under sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act the competent authority assumes jurisdiction to cancel/revoke arms licence only when the case of the licensee falls under conditions envisaged under sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act. The impugned orders also do not reflect the application of mind of licensing authority in revoking the licences as explanation of the petitioners was also not considered in proper perspective. The licensing authority has not adverted to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, which enables him to exercise power of revocation of arms licences. This Court considered the similar issue in the judgment of Vegi Jagadish Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2017 (5) ALD 357 : 2017 (2) ALD (Crl.) 423, relied on by Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 2673 of 2019, wherein it is clearly held that arms licence can be revoked only when conditions under sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act are satisfied. In the said judgment it is held as under: “Sub-Section (3) of Section 17 of the Act, enables the licensing authority, by order in writing, to suspend or revoke a license. In the said judgment it is held as under: “Sub-Section (3) of Section 17 of the Act, enables the licensing authority, by order in writing, to suspend or revoke a license. The conditions precedent for exercising this power are (1) the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by the Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring or possessing or carrying any firearm of ammunition or the holder is of unsound mind or, for any other reason, is unfit for a licence Under the Act, or the licence was obtained by suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or if any of the conditions of the licence have been contravened or if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice served on him under sub-section (1) of Section 77 of the Act, requiring him to deliver up the licence or where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety it is essential to suspend or revoke the licence. An analysis of the facts narrated supra, as well as the impugned order, would make the position clear that rest of the circumstances narrated herein above except, perhaps, the last condition, are not attracted to the case of the petitioner. It is not the case of the State that the petitioner is prohibited, in any manner, by the Arms Act or any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring or possessing or carrying arms and ammunition. He is not considered to be of unsound mind. No other conditions have been traced, which render him unfit to hold a licence. It is not the case of the State that he has obtained the licence by suppression of material information or by furnishing wrong information. Nor was it the case of the State that he has contravened any of the conditions of the licence, or he violated the directive issued to surrender his license.” 8. Though alternative remedy is provided under Section 18 of the Act, but since the orders are passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without any basis beyond the parameters contained in Section 17 of the Act, this Court is inclined to entertain the writ petitions. 9. Though alternative remedy is provided under Section 18 of the Act, but since the orders are passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without any basis beyond the parameters contained in Section 17 of the Act, this Court is inclined to entertain the writ petitions. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are set aside by allowing the writ petitions. The licensing authority is directed to renew the licences of the petitioners in accordance with law, since there are no adverse reports against them. As a sequel to the disposal of these petitions, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.