M.Shyam Sunder Reddy v. The State Of Telangana

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION NO: '14184 OF 2021 Between:

M.Shyam Sunder Reddy, S/o.M.Ram Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, H.No.1-12, Penierla Village, Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...pETlTlONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.

3. The Station House Officer, Kothur Police Station, Cyberabad.

4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad Zone, Shamshabad, Ranga ReddY District ...RE'P.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No.2 herein dated.21t05l2021 in Vide Proceedings No.

A1/53/1 171lCybl2017-2020 as being illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and violation of Articles 14,21 of the Constitution of lndia and Consequentially direct the Respondent No 2 herein to renewal the license of the petitioner herein lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under section "151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the set aside the impilgned order daled.2110512021 in Vide Proceedings No.A1 /53/1 I 71 I Cybl2017 -2020 Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.RAGHUNATH Counsel for the Respondents : SRI S.

t THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.14LA4 OF 2O2L ORDER:

This Writ Petition is liled challenging the order dt.21.O5.2021 in proceedings No.Atl53 I ttT | / Cyb /2017-2020 of the 2"4 respondent.

2.

Vide the impugned order, the 2"d respondent has cancelled the arms license of the petitioner herein and has directed the petitioner to sell his two weapons, which are specifically mentioned in the said order, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the said order, 3.

Sri V.Raghunath, Iearned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent has not considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 03.LO.2O2O to the show-cause notice dt.30.O8.2O2O and the crimes said to have been involved. by the petitioner in the impugned order dt.2l.O5.2O2L are much prior to the proceedings dt. l6.OS.2Ol9 issued by the same 2.d respondent renewing the arms license of the petitioner. Therefore, the order dt.2L.OS.2O2l is not a reasoned order.

4.

On the other hand, Sri S.Ram Mohan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that 2nd respondent has followed the procedure laid down under l

the Arms Act, 1959 by way of issuing show-cause notice dt,30.08.2020 and considered the explanation dt'03'10'2020 submitted by the petitioner herein. According to him' it is a reasoned order and there is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner in passing the impugned order. He further submits that, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he has to file an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, and instead of doing so he has filed the present Writ Petition.

5.

A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the 2nd respondent has issued a show-cause notice dt'30'08'2020 calling explanation from the petitioner' On receipt of the said show-cause notice, petitioner has submitted explanation dt.03.1O.2O2O. The 2nd respondent has considered the explanation dt.o3.10'2020 submitted by the petitioner in the impugned order. Thus, pnma facie, there is no violation of principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order by the 2'd respondent ald under Section 18 of the Arms Act' 1959, appeal lies against the order passed by the 2"d respondent. Therefore, petitioner has to avail the said remedy of filing appeal under Section 18 of the Act'

6.

Sri V.Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the impugned order' the time prescribed for the sale of weapons is 45 days from the date of receipt of the order'

and therefore, he seeks a direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal by fixing some time frame. 7 .

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal under Section 1g of the Arms Aci, 1959 against the order dt.2l.OS.2O21 in proceedings No.All53/ 1l7l /Cyb/2OLZ-2O2O of the 2nd respondent. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to file an interim application seeking stay of the impugned order dt.2l.OS.2O21 . No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. I,NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I //TRUE COPY// \\,,'

To

1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2, The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.

3. The Station House Officer, Kothur Police Station, Cyberabad.

4. The Deputy Comrnissioner of Police, Shamshabad Zone, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District.

5. One CC to Sri V.Raghunath, Advocate [OPUC]

6. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUT]

7. Two CD Copies

8. One Spare Copy Kj V \ \

HIGH COURT DATED:2410612021 ,E ri'i Joo 2 g J[t{ 2021 * () ,

ORDER

WP.No.14184 of 2021 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

b