HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.33707 of 2010
Date: June 18, 2014
Between:
Annadevula Vijaya Mohan Reddy.
… Petitioner And
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Home, Hyderabad & 3 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.33707 of 2010
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The petitioner states that he is a resident of Koduru Village of T.P. Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. He filed W.P.No.9271 of 2005 in this Court as a public interest litigation seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not removing prawn culture and fish culture ponds in an extent of Acs.1000.00 formed by 600 encroachers in Eduru-Koduru tank situated in T.P. Guduru Mandal, Nellore District as illegal. The writ petition was disposed of on 22.06.2005 with a direction to the District Collector, Nellore, to dispose of the petitioner’s representation and take appropriate steps. Pursuant to the said direction, the District Collector initiated proceedings and removed the encroachers. Thereafter the petitioner was receiving life threatening warnings from the encroachers. In those circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application for arms license for his self protection on 06.11.2006 by submitting the same in a prescribed proforma. The District Collector called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Nellore, vide proceedings dated 25.11.2006. The petitioner filed a representation on 28.06.2007 requesting the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry and submit a report to the District Collector, the 2nd respondent. Since the petitioner did not receive any communication, he again submitted a representation on 05.05.2008 to the 2nd respondent to consider his application expeditiously. Pursuant to the said representation, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent on 31.05.2008 requesting him to send report. When there was no response, the petitioner again submitted a representation to the District Collector on 15.08.2009 renewing his request. Ultimately, the impugned order in Rc.3(M). 1693/2006 dated nil-06-2010 was passed. The request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the 3rd respondent rejected his request, quoting the said rejection of the 3rd respondent.
3. No counter-affidavit is filed even after four years by the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’). He submits that licensing authority is the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent after receiving report from the 3rd respondent or from a nearest police station should conduct an enquiry and grant licence or refuse to grant the same. If the report is not submitted within the prescribed time, the licensing authority may make an order after expiry of the prescribed time without waiting for the report. The grounds on which the licence can be refused are stated in Section 14 of the Act.
5. The petitioner submitted an application on 12.11.2006 for grant of an arms licence and ultimately after three years the application was rejected. A perusal of the endorsement made by the 2nd respondent shows that he completely ignored the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 of the Act.
6. In the circumstances, the impugned endorsement dated nil.06.2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: June 18, 2014 BSB
17 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.33707 of 2010
Date: June 18, 2014
BSB