B BALRAJ GOUD Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Memo No. 21684/Arms/2002-2 dated 28-06-2002 of the lstrespondent,whereunder he confirmed the orders of the 2nd respondent in L.No. 270/Chikkadpally who cancelled the Arms licence granted in favour of the petitioner as illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to renew the petitioner's Arms licence.

(2.) The petitioner was granted Arms licence by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Zone, Hyderabad in Memo No. HE-3/3313/ Arms/99, dated 06-12-1999 to possess a N.P. bore Revolver/ Pistol. The petitioner acquired a.32 bore revolver No. B77203 of Webley and Scot make. The licence granted to the petitioner vide 270/Chikkadpally was valid upto 05-12-2000. While so, on receipt of the report from the Station House Officer, Chikkadpally a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10-4-2001 informing that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to under go Rigorous Imprisonment for three years by the III Metropolitan Sessions Judge in S.C.No. 481/97 and also involved in Cr.No. 15/2000 under Sections 447, 427 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of Land Grabbing Act of Chikkadpally Police Station on 13-01-2000 and to show cause why the Arms Licence should not be cancelled for involvement in criminal cases and weapon seized under Arms Act and Rules in the interest of public security, peace and safety. The petitioner who submitted his explanation on 19-04-2001 admitting his involvement in Cr.155/96 which was ended in acquittal on setting aside conviction order dt. 23-10-2000 by the High Court in Crl.A.No. 1550 of 2000 dated 07-11-2000 and about registering Cr. 15/2000 he stated that he was falsely implicated in the case and the same is likely to be dismissed in a court of law. Unless he proved as guilty by a Court of law he should not be punished and requested to renew the Arms Licence in his favour. Being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner the 2nd respondent by order dt. 23-10-2001 cancelled the Arms Licence. Questioning the same the petitioner filed W.P.No. 4579 of 2002 which was disposed of at the stage of admission directing the 1st respondent- Government of Andhra Pradesh to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders of the 2nd respondent, cancelling the Arms Licence within a period of 10 days from the date of the order and with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent with a copy of the order passed in the writ petition.

(3.) It is relevant to notice here that before the Court passes the order the Government through Memo dated 15-05-2002 informed the petitioner that the appeal filed by him against the cancellation of his Arms Licence has been rejected. But however, in obedience to the orders of the High Court in the writ petition, referred to above the Government once again took up the appeal and rejected the same stating that the petitioner has not given any information with regard to his conviction and subsequent acquittal of the case in Cr.No. 155/96 under Sections 147, 143,302 r/w 34 and 120(B) IPC of Begumbazar Police Station. His activities came to know that he was again involved in Cr.No. 15/2000 as per the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Zone, Hyderabad. In view of the same, the petitioner's Arms Licence was cancelled which is impugned in the present writ petition contending that the petitioner was acquitted by the High Court in an appeal arising in Cr.No.155/96 and in fact, his name was not at all mentioned as accused in the FIR and he was falsely implicated in Cr. No. 15/2000. This Court in Crl.M.P.No.389 of 2002 stayed all further proceedings, as it did not disclose any case against the petitioner. Against the alleged land grabbing, W.P.No. 2042 of 1994 was filed which actually belongs to some of the accused named in the FIR who obtained stay in the said writ petition. When the petitioner applied for Arms Licence in the year 1999 after due verification only respondents 1 and 2 through their proceedings dated 07-08-1999 issued the, said Arms Licence. Therefore, taking into consideration of the alleged involvement in Cr.No.155/96 and 15/2000 for cancelling the petitioner's licence is only a ruse and lacks bona fides. Moreover, due to political rivalry the 2nd respondent detained the petitioner on 06-11-2001. But the said detention was set aside by the Government in G.O.Rt.No. 5399 dated 11-12-2001. The petitioner being Income Tax Assessee and Excise Contractor, cancellation of Arms Licence violates Art. 21 of the Constitution.