1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No. 36379 of 2022
Heard Sri. Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for Petitioner
and Sri MD. Abdul Mateen Qureshi, learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for Respondents.
2. The Writ Petition is filed to declare the order of Respondent
No. 1 dated 23.08.2022 passed in Memo No. 10375/Arms/2019 filed
against the order of 2nd Respondent dated 08.02.2019 in Proceedings
No.A1/232/2939/Cyb/2018 thereby rejecting the appeal of the
Petitioner for renewal of his Arms License No.53/R'nagar/242/
Cyb/2016 and revocation of its cancellation and consequently
directing the Respondents to restore the said arms license of the
Petitioner by renewing the same and revoking its cancellation.
3. Brief Facts
of the case:
i. The Petitioner holds an arm license No.53/R'nagar/242/ Cyb/2016, which he initially obtained in the year 1990 vide No. 683/Charminar and which is being renewed from time to time after making necessary enquiry and payment of fees. He had purchased one .25 pistol 103541 and one 12 Bore DBBL No. 2 21774-11. The license was renewed last time under Memo No. 3497/Arms/2014, dated 11.12.2015 for a period of 3 years till 10.12.2018.
ii. The Petitioner deposited the weapon in the safe custody of M/s. Target Point vide No. 268/2018 dated 12.10.2018. At the end of period of license, he made an application with the Respondent No. 2 for renewal and the enquiry report was called from the Inspector of Police, P.S. Rajendranagar. Accordingly a report dated 27.11.2018 vide No. 396/RJNR/Cyb/2018 was submitted.
iii. The Respondent No. 2 issued the show cause notice dated 17.12.2018 vide RC No. A1/232/2989/Cyb/2018 asking the Petitioner to show cause why license issued to him should not be cancelled as enquiry revealed that there is no threat from any individual or group and that he was involved in the following 4 criminal cases.
i. Cr. No. 264/2009 - u/s 171(f) & 506 IPC, ii. Cr. No. 144/2010 - u/s 323, 307, 506 IPC, iii. Cr.No. 76/2011 - u/s 506, 507 IPC, iv. Cr. No. 30/2013 - u/s 384, 506 IPC.
3iv. The Petitioner submitted a reply dated 31.12.2018 with a request to renew his arms license, stating that he holds license since 1990, and he was acquitted in all the alleged criminal cases.
v. The Respondent No. 2 passed order dated 08.02.2019 in proceedings No. A1/232/2989/Cyb/2018 rejecting the request for renewal of license. Again under memo dated 09.08.2019, the Respondent No. 2 rejected the Petitioner's application. vi. Aggrieved by the said rejection orders, the Petitioner filed an appeal dated 30.09.2019 before 1st Respondent, which was kept pending for long. Therefore, the Petitioner approached Telangana Human Rights Commission where a case vide HRC No. 3426/2021 was registered. Notices were issued and the report was called. During such time, 1st Respondent rejected the appeal under vide Memo No. 10375/Arms/2019 dated 13.07.2021.
vii. Petitioner filed WP No. 35842 of 2021 challenging the rejection order dated 13.07.2021 by 1st Respondent and this Court vide orders dated 28.01.2022 allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter back to 1st Respondent for considering 4 afresh and pass orders. As the 1st Respondent failed to comply the orders, the Petitioner filed CC No. 1455 of 2022. Thereafter, 1st Respondent called report from 2nd Respondent dated 20.06.2022 and 29.07.2022 and personal hearing was conducted on 22.07.2022 and 29.07.2022. Vide orders date 23.08.2022, 1st respondent rejected the appeal on the ground that there is no threat perception.
viii. Petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in K.Raghavendra Rao & Others Vs. State of Telangana 1, Mohammed Danish Khan Vs State of Telangana & Others 2, Mohammed Asad Khan Vs. The State of Telangana 3, Mohammed Danish Khan Vs State of Telangana & Others 4 Madhya Pradesh High Court in Keshav Upadhyay Vs. State of M.P. & Others 5, Kerala High Court in T.K. Haridasan Vs. The District Collector, Eranakulam 6 and Mathew K.T. Vs 1 2019 SCC Online 3559 2 MANU/TL/0378/2021 3 MANU/TL/1287/2022 4 MANU/TL/0378/2022 5 2020 SCC Online MP 3215 6 MANU/KE/3650/2018 5 State of Kerala and others 7, and Delhi High Court in Sahil Kohli Vs. Additional Commissioner of Police 8.
4. Contentions of Petitioner :-
i. The Respondents failed to appreciate that the Petitioner occupied a good position in society and there has been continues threats to him from several individuals which can be evidenced by criminal proceedings initiated against him by the third parties.
ii. The Appellate authority has not recorded the contentions of the Petitioner in the impugned memo and without providing any opportunity of personal hearing, rejected the Appeal.
iii. The Appellate authority failed to follow the judicial precedents that the absence of threat perception cannot be a ground to reject the request for renewal of arms license as held in Mathew K.T. (supra) and K. Raghavendra Rao (supra). iv. At the first instance the Appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground that there are criminal cases against him, which is said to be false, as all the cases were resulted in acquittal, the 7 MANU/KE/0997/2015 8 2013 SCC Oline Del 3762 6 Appellant has rejected the Appeal this time on the ground of no threat perception.
5. Contentions of Respondent No. 1 :-
i. In compliance of the order dated 28.01.2022 in WP No. 35842/2021, the 1st Respondent herein called the report from 2nd Respondent, dated 20.06.2022, wherein he stated that the matter was re-enquired which revealed that the Petitioner involved in several criminal cases and therefore, he did not recommend for restoration and renewal of the Arms License of the petitioner.
ii. The Petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his explanation, wherein he admitted that 9 cases are registered against him, out of which, in 8 cases, he was acquitted and one case is pending trial.
iii. The 1st Respondent herein after considering the report of 2nd Respondent dated 20.06.2022, the explanation submitted by the Petitioner, rejected the appeal on the ground that he involved in 9 criminal cases and also he does not have any threat perception, as such the 1st Respondent herein did not recommend for the renewal of license.
7iv. Though sub section (3) of Section 17 does not provide pendency of crime as a ground for revocation of license, but the language used in clause 'a' of sub section 3 warrants revocation if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the license "is for any reason unfit for the license under the Act". The residuary discretion is left with the licensing authority. Therefore if the licensing authority is satisfied that the licensee is involved in a criminal case, which directly or indirectly affect the public peace or safety, he is well within the power to cancel, suspend or revoke the license.
v. The 1st Respondent herein placed reliance on Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs State of U.P. 9, Ramesh Singh Vs State of U.P. 10, Tale Singh Yadav Vs State of UP. 11 and Sunil Singh Vs State of U.P. 12.
6. Contentions of Respondent No. 2:-
i. This Court passed an interim order dated 23.06.2023 directing the Petitioner to submit the documents /information of threat 9 AIR 1986 ALL 142(FB) 10 2007 CRI.L.J 2401 11 1998 Cr.LJ (Ald) 2842 12 2009 (9) ADJ 657 8 perception to Respondent No. 2 within one week and thereafter the Respondent to call for report from the concerned officials with regard to threat perception of the Petitioner and consider the same afresh.
ii. In pursuance of above interim order, the Petitioner submitted representation dated 28.06.2023 stating that, he does not have any documentary proof to show the threat perception. His wife was a Corporator of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and he supported her in the elections, which led to political rivalry with opponents. They are causing hindrance to his life, and that he is holding license for the past 3 decades but he never misused it, therefore requested for renewal of his License No. 53/R'nagar/242.
iii. As per the directions of this Court, the 2nd Respondent herein called for the threat perception report of the Petitioner from the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Cyberabad and a report vide Ref. SB(I) No. 156/S5/CYB/2023 dated 27.07.2023 is furnished with the following details :
S. Case Details Offences Status
No.
1. CC No. 44/2013 171(F) & I Special Magistrate, Hyderabad
(old CC No. Sec 506 vide orders dated 07.03.2013
9
206/2010) IPC, granted acquittal.
Charminar
P.S.
2. CC No. 33/2013 323, 307, XXIII Special Magistrate,
(old CC No. 506 Hyderabad has convicted and
367/2011) IPS, sentenced him to pay 1000/-
Charminar
CRAP No. 318/2014 is
P.S.
dismissed by MSJ, Hyderabad
CRLRC No. 165/2015 allowed
and the Petitioner is acquitted.
3. CC No. 50/2013 506, 507 I Special Magistrate, Hyderabad (Old CC No. IPC., close the case under section 258 519/2011) Charminar Cr.P.C. on 04.03.2013 P.S.
4 CC No. 384, 506 The High Court Quashed it vide
433/2013 IPC., CRLP No. 6320/2013 dated
Charminar 11.11.2013 in view of the
P.S. compromise arrived between
the parties.
5. CC No. 447, 427 Pending on the file of VIII
1440/2021 (PT) IPC., RGI M.M. Rajendranagar.
Airport P.S.
6. Crime No. 41(A), 107 It was quashed by the High
157/2018 Cr.P.C. Court vide order in CRLP No.
Charminar 1200/2019 dated 27.02.2019
P.S.
7. Crime No. 447, 427 It was quashed by the High
244/2012 IPC., & Court vide order in CRLP No.
Section 3, 4, 10289/2013 dated 06.06.2022
5 of Land
Grabbing
(Prohibition)
Act, 1982,
RGI P.S.
8. Crime No. 41(A) It was quashed by the High
81/2014 Cr.P.C., Court vide order in CRLP No.
Charminar 1202/2019 dated 27.02.2019
P.S.
10
9. Crime No. 420, 324, This case was closed as civil in
386/2015 506 IPC., nature vide orders dated
Gachibowli 30.12.2015 by XXV M.M,
P.S. Miyapur.
iv) Out of the above 9 cases, 8 cases were closed/quashed and one case i.e., Crime No. 212/2018 under section 447, 427 IPC, RGI Airport Police Station is pending for trial before 11th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District and the same is posted on 25.09.2023 v. The Petitioner is involved in criminal cases such as attempt to murder, extortion, cheating and trespass between 2009 to 2018 in and around Hyderabad and Cyberabad. There is a possibility of threat to public peace.
vi. The SHO, Rajendranagar Police Station also submitted letter No. 25/M2/RJNR-PS/CYB/2023 dated 11.07.2023 stating that the Petitioner does not have any threat perception. Findings of the Court :-
7. The Petitioner initially filed WP No. 35842 of 2021 challenging the rejection order dated 13.07.2021 passed by 1st Respondent and this Court vide orders dated 28.01.2022 allowed the 11 writ petition, remanded the matter back to 1stRespondent for considering afresh and pass orders. As the 1st Respondent failed to comply with the orders, the Petitioner filed CC No. 1455 of 2022. During the pendency of the said Contempt Case, the 1st Respondent called report from 2ndRespondent dated 20.06.2022 and personal hearing was conducted on 22.07.2022 and 29.07.2022, then the 1st Respondent vide orders date 23.08.2022 rejected the appeal stating that there is no threat perception to the petitioner.
8. Whereas the Respondent No. 1 contends that in compliance of the order dated 28.01.2022 in WP No. 35842/2021, the 1st Respondent herein called the report from 2nd Respondent who in turn submitted a report dated 20.06.2022 stating that the matter was re- enquired wherein it was revealed that the Petitioner involved in several criminal cases and therefore did not recommend for restoration and renewal of the Arms license. The Petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his explanation before 1st Respondent, wherein he admitted that 9 cases are registered against him, out of which, in 8 cases, he was acquitted and one case is pending trial. 12
9. The 1st Respondent herein after considering the report of 2nd Respondent dated 20.06.2022, the explanation submitted by the Petitioner has rejected the appeal on the ground that he was involved in 9 criminal cases and also he does not have any threat perception, as such the 1st Respondent herein did not recommend for the renewal of license. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the said rejection order dated 2006.2022 was passed without affording him an opportunity in accordance with principles of natural justice is unsustainable.
10. The 2nd Respondent herein contends that Petitioner submitted representation dated 28.06.2023 stating that, he does not have any documentary proof to show the threat perception, that his wife was a Corporator of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, he supported her in the elections, it lead to political rivalry with opponents, they are causing hindrance to his life, and that he is holding license from past 3 decade but he never misused it, therefore requested for renewal of his License No. 53/R'nagar/242.
11. As per the directions of this Court, the 2nd Respondent herein called for the threat perception report of the Petitioner from the 13 Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Cyberabad vide Ref. SB(I) No.156/S5/CYB/2023 dated 27.07.2023, wherein it revealed that the Petitioner is involved in 9 criminal cases out of which 8 cases were closed/quashed and one case i.e., Crime No. 212/2018 under section 447, 427 IPC, RGI Airport Police Station is pending for trial before 11th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. The same is posted on 25.09.2023.
12. As the Petitioner involved in criminal cases such as attempt to murder, extortion, cheating and trespass between 2009 to 2018 in around Hyderabad and Cyberabad. There is a possibility of threat to public peace. Further, the SHO, Rajendranagar Police Station also submitted letter No. 25/M2/RJNR-PS/CYB/2023 dated 11.07.2023 stating that the Petitioner does not have any threat perception.
13. It is appropriate to have a look at Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, which reads as under:
17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences: (3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence, 14
(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.
14. This Court in K. Raghavendra Rao vs. The State of Telangana 13
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 13 MANU/TL/0149/2019 15 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 v. State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/AP/0333/2017 : [2017] 0 Supreme (AP) 255 relied on by counsel for the petitioner in WP. 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.....
15. Mohammed Asad Khan vs. The State of Telangana 14, the Apex Court held that:
5. A bare perusal of Section 14 of the Act says that under what circumstances, the respondents can refuse the licence. Section 14 deals with 'refusal of licence' and Section 17 deals with 'variation, suspension and revocation of licences' and in both the provisions, it is mentioned about certain categories where refusal, revocation or suspension of licence can be done. The only ground on which the petitioner's licence was not renewed is that there is no threat perception and that is not any of the reasons either for refusal or suspension or revocation of the licence.
8. The reason stated by the authorities that 'there is no threat perception' to the petitioner is not enumerated in Section 17(3). The petitioner along with his application submitted reasons for seeking renewal of the licence and the respondent No. 2 has not dealt with the petitioner's application in consonance with Section 17(3) of the Act but they have given a reason that there is no threat perception. The impugned order is therefore, liable to be set aside.
14 MANU/TL/1287/2022 16
16. In view of the above, the threat perception is not a ground under section 17(3) and the Respondents cannot revoke the license on the said ground.
17. Now another issue before this Court is whether Respondent can revoke the license on the ground of involvement in criminal case.
18. The Allahabad High Court in Indrajeet Singh vs. State of U.P. 15 has an occasion to consider the similar submissions wherein it has been held that:
16. The words "public peace and public order" are normally considered to maintain peace and order at public at large. However, there may be instances where though the immediate danger may be to an individual, but it may have threat to the public at large. For example a fire arm licensee entered inside the house of a neighbour and threatened him or undertook blank firing by licensed weapon or otherwise, though it may be itself be violative or not violative of conditions fire arm license, but this act is not only a threat to an individual, but is definitely likely to cause disturbance of public peace and public order to public at large, therefore, in these circumstances for security of public peace or for public order, the licensing authority may suspend or revoke the arms licence under Section 17 (3) of the Act, of 1959. Similarly, a person/licensee who is involved in a case of murder or attempt to murder or any offence affecting human body or any other serious offence, there may be likelihood of breach of public peace or public order.
17. The words used in Section 17 (3) (b) of the Act, 1959 is "deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety" i.e. in 15 MANU/UP/2251/2021 : 2021(10) ADJ 471 17 order to secure public peace or for public safety, the licensing authority if deems necessary, may suspend or revoke the licence. It is not necessary that actual disturbance of public peace or public safety may take place to revoke or suspend the arms licence. The licensing authority on the basis of material available, if deems necessary for security of public peace or for public safety may revoke the arms licence. Therefore, at this stage subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority comes into picture and if the licensing authority finds that due to certain act whether it is affecting to an individual or public at large, may for the security of public peace or for public safety, may suspend or revoke the arms licence. This is a precautionary measure, therefore, it is not necessary that actual disturbance of public peace or public safety may occur. Therefore, even the criminal antecedent of the licensee are very important factor for consideration for granting license. In these circumstances, even pendency of a criminal case involving serious offence may be sufficient to suspend or revoke the arms licence. Similarly, even after the acquittal, the nature of acquittal may be an important factor to consider whether there may be a likelihood of disturbance of public peace and safety especially in cases where the offences are against the State, offence against public tranquillity, offences affecting human body, offences affecting life, and sexual offences etc.
18. The licensing authority is in the field, therefore, is the best judge who can assess the situation on the basis of material which are before him. Such an assessment cannot be substituted by this Court which is no way connected or does not have any inkling of situations. This Court cannot undertake any exercise to determine the facts leading to the subjective satisfaction of the licencing authority on the basis of situation then existing, except there are material to show as to how the satisfaction is perverse or based on no material (See Jagat Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. MANU/UP/1370/1996 : 1997 (34) ACC 499).
18
19. There must be subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority that the licensee is not fit to continue holding of licence. If the licensing authority is satisfied of the fact that a continued existence of fire arms licence with a person charged with various offence may endanger security of public peace and public safety then revocation of licence under Section 17 cannot be said to arbitrary or without jurisdiction. (See, MANU/BH/0291/1999 : (1999) 3 PLJR 203, Tej Narayan Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others)"
19. Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 1605 of 2014 in Shiv Narayan v. Addl. Commissioner of Police (Licensing) 16, wherein it is held as under:
10. "In fact, the Full Bench of Patna High Court in Kapildeo Singh v. State of Bihar and others, MANU/BH/0012/1987 : AIR 1987 Patna 122 has held that "In our Constitution and jurisprudence there is no fundamental right to bear arms unlike the Second Amendment to the American Constitution". It further held that "the registration and pendency of a criminal case for a major or capital offence may for adequate reasons justify the suspension or revocation of licence under Cl.(a) of sub-sec(3) of S. 17 of the Act." This Court is also of the opinion that the 'precautionary principle' must be followed and public safety cannot be put in jeopardy by granting an arms licence to the petitioner at this stage."
20. In Parveen Kumar Beniwal vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 17, the Delhi High Court held as follows:-
16
(2014) SCC OnLine Del.1085 17 (2014) SCC OnLine Del 7279 19
12. It is settled law that this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not supplant its opinion over that of concerned authority. It is also well settled that there is no inherent right to carry or hold firearms; the said right cannot be read in either Article 21 or 19 of the Constitution of India. Thus, a person's right for an arms licence is circumscribed by the provisions of the Act, which grants a wide discretion to the licensing authority to determine whether a person is unfit for a licence. No interference with exercise of this discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be warranted unless it is found that the decision of the concerned authority is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or for extraneous considerations or the decision making process is faulted. And, the decision of the concerned authority would not be held as unreasonable unless the Court comes to a conclusion that no reasonable person could have, in the given facts, taken such a decision. Clearly, in the present case, the opinion that the petitioner has propensity to be involved in quarrels cannot be stated to be unreasonable or without any material.
21. In the light of the aforesaid principle, coming to the facts of the case on hand, as discussed supra, petitioner herein involved in the aforesaid 9 cases. The allegations leveled against him are attempt to murder, extortion, cheating and trespass during the period from 2009 20 to 2018 in and around Hyderabad and Cyberabad. Out of aforesaid 9 cases, 8 cases were closed/quashed and one case is pending. However, according to the petitioner, only 8 cases were registered against him and they were closed/quashed. There are no cases pending against him. However, according to the respondents, petitioner has involved in 9 cases, out of which 8 cases were closed/quashed and one case is pending. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid cases where the allegations are serious in nature.
22. As discussed supra, in compliance with the order dated 28.01.2022, in W.P.No.35842 of 2021, 1st respondent conducted personal hearing on 22.07.2022 and 2907.2022 and rejected the appeal filed by petitioner. They have also called for the report of the local police.
23. It is also relevant to note that in the light of the aforesaid facts, this Court also called for the report from the respondents. Learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Home, produced report in a sealed cover and on perusal of the same, it was returned to him. Perusal of the said report would reveal that there is no threat perception to the 21 petitioner, he has involved in the aforesaid 9 cases. Thus, respondents have also considered the criminal antecedents of the petitioner herein.
24. As discussed supra, petitioner involved in the offences such as attempt to murder, extortion, land grabbing etc., though he is acquitted in the aforesaid cases, his criminal antecedents have to be considered while granting renewal of arms license. Licensing Authority on the basis of the material available, if deems necessary for security of public peace or for public safety may revoke the arms license in terms of Section 17 (3) (b) of the Act.
25. The aforesaid stated discussion would reveal that the respondents have afforded an opportunity to him and followed the procedure laid down under law. Thus, there is no violation of procedure laid down under law and also principles of natural justice by the respondents. They have also considered the entire aspects including threat perception, criminal antecedents of the petitioner after calling for report from local police and Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Cyberabad. Thus, the order dated 23.08.2022 passed by 1st respondent is on consideration of 22 entire material on record and also the provisions of the Act. It does not require interference by this Court.
26. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN Date:08.09.2023 vvr