THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.8883 of 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to declare the order passed by respondent No.1 in Memo No.472/Arms/2021 dated 25.03.2021, whereunder the order passed by respondent No.2 in Proceedings No.A1/105/3166/Cyb/2020 dated 16.11.2020 was confirmed, as illegal and to set aside the same and also for a consequential direction to restore the arms licence of the petitioner after renewing the same in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, "the Act").
FACTS:-
2. Initially, the petitioner herein obtained an arms licence in the year 2001 initially. The said licence has been renewed from time to time. It was valid up to 10.11.2019. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted an application dated 30.10.2019 seeking to renew the said licence as per the procedure laid down under the Act. After lapse of almost a year from the date of making the application, respondent No.2 has issued a show cause notice dated 10.09.2020 asking the petitioner to submit his explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner herein has submitted his explanation on 05.10.2020. Thereafter, respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 16.11.2020 rejected the said application submitted by the petitioner herein for renewal of arms licence and cancelled the existing arms licence of the petitioner. However, respondent No.2 has accorded permission to the petitioner herein to sell his three weapons, the details of which are specifically mentioned in the order, within 45 days from the date of the said order.
2
KL,J W.P.No.8883 of 2021
3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 16.11.2020, the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Act with respondent No.1. Thereafter, respondent No.1 had issued a notice requesting the petitioner to appear for personal hearing on 03.03.2021. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before respondent No.1 and reiterated his contentions and also the contentions raised by him in his explanation dated 05.10.2020 submitted to respondent No.2. Vide order dated 25.03.2021, respondent No.1 has dismissed the said appeal confirming the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 16.11.2020. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
4. Sri V. Ramchander Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the show cause notice dated 10.09.2020, explanation dated 05.10.2020 submitted by the petitioner and the Proceedings dated 16.11.2020 issued by respondent No.2, would submit that respondent No.2 did not consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner herein dated 05.10.2020 in response to the show cause notice dated 10.09.2020. According to him, the petitioner herein specifically contended that he is the owner of a petrol bunk in Nizamabad and he visits there regularly from Hyderabad (atleast once in a week). He is staying in his farm house situated at an isolated place near Pocharam Village. He also contended that since he visits on weekends and banks are closed, he has to keep the cash with him and he cannot leave the cash at the petrol bunk for safety reasons. He further contended that a petrol bunk was attacked and looted near Bodhan, where the petrol bunk of the petitioner was also situated, by masked robbers. In proof of the same, he has filed a copy of the news 3 KL,J W.P.No.8883 of 2021 item published in Telangana Today. The petitioner also stated in his explanation that he is a sportsman and life member of National Rifle Association of India and he regularly visits the shooting range and practices there. The petitioner herein specifically contended in the explanation that he has no criminal record and his father, Mr.Abdul Aleem Khan, cancelled his arms licence about two years ago with an intention to gift his weapon to the petitioner herein and therefore, it also has sentimental attachment for the petitioner herein. Learned counsel would further submit that though the petitioner herein has specifically contended the above stated facts in his explanation dated 05.10.2020, respondent No.2, without considering the same, rejected the said application and cancelled the arms licence of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 16.11.2020, only on the ground that the petitioner herein is not having any threat from any group or any individual. According to learned counsel, the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Act with respondent No.1 reiterating the above said contentions. Respondent No.1, without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner herein in his explanation and also during personal hearing and without considering the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act, which deals with the grounds on which a licence can be suspended or revoked, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, confirming the order dated 16.11.2020 of respondent No.2, vide his order dated 25.03.2021. According to learned counsel, both the orders dated 16.11.2020 and 25.03.2021 passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively are without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the contentions raised therein and also provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act. Thus, both the said orders are in violation of 4 KL,J W.P.No.8883 of 2021 principles of natural justice and the procedure laid down under the Act and also in violation of the principles laid down by this Court in K. Raghavendra Rao v. The State of Telangana1 and another judgment rendered in W.P.No.7844 of 2020 dated 13.10.2020.
5. With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to set aside the above said two orders and for a consequential direction to restore the arms licence of the petitioner herein. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
6. Respondent No.2 has filed a counter contending that the Raidurgam police have conducted an enquiry and submitted a report dated 12.02.2020 stating that as of now, no criminal cases are pending against the petitioner and there is no threat perception to the petitioner from any group or any individuals. Considering the said report and also the fact that there is no threat perception to the petitioner herein, respondent No.2 has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner vide proceedings dated 16.11.2020. It is further contended by respondent No.2 that respondent No.1/appellate authority has gone through the relevant records and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner herein, vide order dated 25.03.2021 has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein confirming the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 16.11.2020. Therefore, there is no error in the above said orders dated 16.11.2020 and 25.03.2021.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Home has reiterated the above said contentions and sought to dismiss the present writ petition. 1 MANU/TL/0149/2019 5 KL,J W.P.No.8883 of 2021 FINDING OF THE COURT:
8. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, it is apt to refer and reproduce Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, which reads as under:-
"17(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; or
(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; or
(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; or
(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or
(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."
9. This Court in K. Raghavendra Rao's case (1 supra) had an occasion to deal with the said provision i.e Section 17 of the Act. Relying on the principle laid down in Vegi Jagadish Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, this Court held that the order passed by the licensing authority in the said case was without consideration of the submissions made by the petitioner therein and without reasons and also without application of mind. The said order revoking the arms licence of the petitioner therein was in violation of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. Relying on the very same principle, a learned Single Judge of this Court in another judgment in W.P.No.7844 of 2020 dated 13.10.2020 directed the licence issuing authority to consider the application submitted by the petitioner therein afresh and pass appropriate orders by giving reasons in support of the said order.
2 (2017) Supreme (AP) 225 6 KL,J W.P.No.8883 of 2021
10. A perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner herein has obtained arms licence initially in the year 2001. The said licence has been renewed from time to time. It was valid till 10.11.2019. Therefore, the petitioner herein has submitted an application on 31.10.2019 with respondent No.2 to renew the said licence. Though the said application was submitted on 31.10.2019, respondent No.2 has issued a show cause notice only on 10.09.2020 i.e after lapse of almost a year. The petitioner herein has submitted his explanation on 05.10.2020 to the said show cause notice explaining the reasons mentioned supra specifically. Respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 16.11.2020 rejected the said application and cancelled the arms licence of the petitioner only on the ground that there is no threat perception to the petitioner herein from any group or any individual. Though it is stated by respondent No.2, in his order dated 16.11.2020, that the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice was considered and it is not convincing, he has not given any reasons in support of his finding to that effect. In fact, there is no reference to the contentions raised by the petitioner in his explanation dated 05.10.2020 by respondent No.2 in his order dated 16.11.2020.
11. As stated supra, the petitioner herein in his explanation dated 05.10.2020 specifically contended that he has a petrol bunk in Nizamabad, he regularly visits the said pump at least once in a week. He stays in a farm house which is situated at an isolated place. He visits the said farm house and the petrol bunk once in a week and carries cash with him. Recently, a petrol bunk near Bodhan, where the petrol bunk of the petitioner is also situated, was robbed by masked robbers and the said fact was also reported in newspapers. 7
KL,J W.P.No.8883 of 2021 He is a sports man and a life member of National Rifle Association of India and he regularly visits the shooting range and practices there. His father gifted the weapon to him by canceling his licence and it has sentimental attachment for the petitioner herein. He has no criminal record.
12. A perusal of the order dated 16.11.2020 would reveal that respondent No.2 has not even referred to the said contentions of the petitioner herein in his explanation dated 05.10.2020. The only ground on which respondent No.2 has cancelled the licence of the petitioner and rejected his application seeking renewal of the same is non-existence of any threat perception from any group or any individual. He has not even considered the grounds on which the arms licence can be suspended or revoked as specifically mentioned in Section 17(3) of the Act. Thus, according to this Court, the order dated 16.11.2020 is without application of mind. The said order does not contain any reasons. Any order without reasons is an order without application of mind.
13. A perusal of the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act would reveal that the petitioner herein has specifically taken several grounds, including the ground that respondent No.2 has not considered the contentions of the petitioner and the grounds on which the arms licence can be cancelled or revoked as laid down under Section 17(3) of the Act. Though the said ground was specifically taken by the petitioner in his appeal, respondent No.1/appellate authority did not consider the same in the impugned proceedings dated 25.03.2021.
8
KL,J W.P.No.8883 of 2021
14. A perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 25.03.2021 issued by respondent No.1 reveals that respondent No.1 has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner only on the ground that there is no threat perception to the petitioner and he has not taken part in any shooting competition for the past five years. Though it is mentioned that he has considered the entire record and also the contentions of the petitioner in his explanation, in the appeal and also during personal hearing, respondent No.1 has not referred to any of the same in his order dated 25.03.2021. Even respondent No.1 did not consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner with respondent No.2 dated 05.10.2020 specifically raising the above said contentions. Respondent No.1 has not even referred to the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act, as per which, there is a criteria to cancel or revoke the arms licence. At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to point out that the petitioner herein has specifically raised several contentions as mentioned supra in his appeal. Respondent No.1 did not consider the same. Thus, according to this Court, the impugned order dated 25.03.2021 suffers from non-consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner. It is not a reasoned order. Any order without reasons is an order without application of mind.
15. In K. Raghavendra Rao's case (1 supra), this Court after referring to the principle laid down in Vegi Jagadish Kumar's case (2 supra) held that the order therein was without any basis and beyond the parameters contained in Section 17 of the Act, and set aside the order passed by the licensing authority revoking the arms licence of the petitioner therein and directed the licensing authority to renew the licence of the petitioner therein in accordance with law. 9
KL,J W.P.No.8883 of 2021
16. In W.P.No.7844 of 2020 dated 13.10.2020, by agreeing with the principle laid down in K. Raghavendra Rao's case (1 supra), this Curt directed the licensing authority therein to consider the application submitted by the petitioner therein afresh to grant arms licence.
17. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the above said judgments, coming to the facts of the case on hand, as discussed supra, both respondent Nos.2 and 1, licensing authority and appellate authority respectively, did not consider the contentions raised by the petitioner herein. Both the orders suffer from lack of reasons. Any order without reasons is an order without application of mind and, therefore, the same are liable to be set aside.
CONCLUSION:
18. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and both the orders dated 16.11.2020 and 25.03.2021 passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively are set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner herein dated 31.10.2019 afresh by affording an opportunity to the petitioner herein and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 is specifically directed to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner herein in his reply dated 05.10.2020, the criteria mentioned in Section 17(3) of the Act for suspension and revocation of arms licence and also the principle laid down by this Court in K. Raghavendra Rao's case (1 supra) and in W.P.No.7844 of 2020 dated 13.10.2020. Respondent No.2 shall complete the entire exercise within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this 10 KL,J W.P.No.8883 of 2021 order and shall communicate the order to the petitioner herein. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:01-06-2021.
JSU