Mohammed Danish Khan vs State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 1482 Tel

            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.

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

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

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.

MANU/TL/0149/2019

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.

(2017) Supreme (AP) 225

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.

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.

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.

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

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