Sri Gaddi Gangi Reddy v. The State Of Telangana And 2 Others
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7844 OF 2020 Between:
Sri Gaddi Gangi Reddy, S/o. Narsa Reddy, Aged about 48 Years, Occ: Business, Rio. Villa No. 54, Mithila Saket, A S Rao Nagar, Secunderabad. AND ...PET|T|ONER
1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Department of Home Affairs Secretariat Buildings, Hyd era bad.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, Rachakonda.
3. The Station House Officer, Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Rachakonda. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in refusing to grant Arms Licence to the petitioner vide Ref . No.323/5664/Fresh/lV 1 - Arms/Rckd/2O19-20 dt.1210312020 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to forthwith grant Arms Licence to the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to forthwith grant Arms Licence to the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. N. NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER
J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO UIRIT PETITION No.7844 OF 2O2O ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 2.
The armed licence application submitted by the petitioner is rejected by the order impugned, dated 12.03.20i9. The said order is challenged on the ground that no reasons are assigned in support of the decision rejecting the application and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act')- It is also contended that there exists a threat perception to the petitioner and to protect his life, he needs arms Iicence and rejection is illegal. It is further contended that material relied upon to reject the claim was not made available to the petitioner.
3.
in the counter affidavit, respondents sought to justify the decision to reject the arms licence and asserted that there is no threat perception to the petitioner. In addition to the justilication given in the counter affidavit to support the decision in rejecting the application, it is also contended that petitioner has remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Act and when such remedy is available , this u,rit petition is not maintainable. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order does not assign reasons in support of the decision and cannot be sustained in law. The Commissioner also placed reliance on a report submitted by the local police without supplying to the
I petitioner. He submits that the right of petitioner to SECUIE arms licence cannot be denied in an arbitrary manner. 5.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that on due application of mind, the claim of petitioner was rejected and there is no illegality in the order. He submits that against the decision ol the Commissioner, remedy of appeal is provided under Section 18 of the Act and therefore the u,rit petition is not main tainable.
6.
Therc are t$'o aspects to decision o[ a statutory authority. Firstly, he must apply his mind independently based on material placed on record after giving due opportunity to claimant and secondly to take the decision supported by reasons incorporated in the order/ proceedings. Both aspects found wanting in the impugned decision.
7.
From the reading of the order, it is apparent that the Commissioner has not assigned reasons as to why the application for grant of arms licence is rejected. 8.
It is axiomatic that a decision of quasi-judicial authority must speak for itself and cannot be supplemented in the form of counter affidavit. A non-speaking order of the statutory authority cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and is ex facie illegal.
9.
Right to lile is sacrosanct and guaranteed by Article 2 1 of the Constitution of India. It is the fulcrum, around which all other rights flow. The Act seeks to guarantee this right, when a
person apprehends of threat to his 1ife. Thus, it is not an empty formality. Therefore, authority has to examine the claim having due regard to alleged threat perception and take a decision but cannot mechanically reject.
10. It is also noted that the Commissioner placed reliance on a report of the Jawahar Nagar Police to reject the claim of petitioner. The said report \r'as obtained behind the back of petitioner and copy $,as not furnished to him. Whenever, a statutory authority decides a claim placing reliance on material which may impact the decision making of the authority and r.r,hen such material is against the person, perforce, the person is entitled to be provided the material so relied upon and opportunity to rebut the contents and then decide by applying his mind.
1 1. The next issue for consideration is, whether the petitioner be relegated to avail the remedy of appeal.
12. Though, there is no bar to entertain a writ petition even if petitioner has alternative remedy to redress his grievance, ordinarily, the writ Court does not entertain u,rit petition when the petitioner has an effective and efficacious statutorily engrafted appeal remedy against the decision of an authority. Section 18 of the Act provides appeal remedy. Thus, ordinarily, a person aggrieved by the decision of the original authority has to avail the remedy of appeal. As noted hereinabove, the order of the statutory authority is vitiated on two counts, i.e., it is not a speaking order and material relied on to take an adverse
decision was not supplied, which go to the root of the matter. The appellate authority cannot cure this patent illegality. A nonspeaking order also deprives the opportunity to raise grounds in support of appeal, thus, making the appeal remedy nugatory. In the facts of this case, as the order per se is not sustainable, the Court is not inclined to relegate the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal.
13. K. Raghavendra Rao and others vs. the State of Telangana and othersl is also under the same Act. Similar objection r,l,as raised before this Court. On due consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act and the decision of the statutory authoritl,, this Court having noticed that the order of statutory authority did not speak for itself rejected the objection on maintainability of n'rit petition. I am in respectlul agreement with the view expressed by this Court in the above decision.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the order impugned is set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed.
15. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, is directed to consider afresh the application submitted by the petitioner on 07.1O.2019 to grant arms licence. The Commissioner is directed to furnish a copy of the report of .Jau,ahar Nagar Police to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to submit his response to the report. The petitioner shall file his response u'ithin tu,o weeks from the date of furnishing the said report. I f any response is filed by the petitioner within the time 'ttelu tL ou9 20r9
l stipulated above or otherwise, the Commissioner of police shall consider the issue uninfluenced by the earlier decision, and pass appropriate orders by assigning reasons in support of the decision. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed. SD/.N.CHANDRA SEKHA AO ASSISTANT RE RAR ,TRUE COPY'
SECT N OFFICER To, 1, The Principal Secretary Department of Home Affairs, State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, Rachakonda.
3. The Station House Officer, Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Rachakonda.
4. 5 L.R. Copies.
5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.
6. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
7. One CC to Sri N. Naveen Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]
8. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad touTl
9. Two CD Copies CHR \j---
HIGH COURT DATED:1311012020 rA r4:
e
ORDER
2 2 oCT 2020 o a 92, "/ W.P.No.7844 of 2020 t /) c T ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COTS q .rrl )- ,\'- N .'-1I)CA)\z]) l, ,) -=Dtr .--q\to\.# -./ -\ \