High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 09 AP CK 6711

Dayyam Narasimha Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati · Decided on 28 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 26413 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 485 words

Instant Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner under Article 226 for the following relief:

“to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus A. declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering and disposing of the application of the petitioner dated 23.10.2024 for grant of an arms licence application in Form A-1 under Rule 11 of the Arms Rules, 2016, along with fee vide Challan No.81290950152024 dated 23.10.2024, within the time prescribed under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Rules 13 and 14 of the Arms Rules, 2016, as being illegal, arbitrary, in breach of the statutory mandate and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently

B. direct the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the said application by a reasoned and speaking order, after obtaining the report of the 3rd and 4th respondents, having due regard to the specific threat to the life of the petitioner and the police picket posted at his house”

2.

Sum and substance of writ petition is that the petitioner is aged about 45 years and is a permanent resident of Kandukluru Village, Ananthapuramu District, who is eking out livelihood through cultivation.

3.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner’s brother was murdered on 30.03.2018. Petitioner is also facing life threat in the hands of unruly elements and as such, petitioner made an application dated 23.10.2024 to the concerned authority seeking Arms license, by paying the prerequisite fee.

4.

Learned counsel contends that petitioner submitted the siad Arm License Application way back on 23.10.2024, but till today respondent authorities have not passed any orders in respect of the said Application, which is greatly affecting petitioner’s rights.

5.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that respondent authorities received petitioner’s Application in respect of an Arms License. Thereafter, the concerned authority called for a Threat Perception Report from the concerned Police Station and the same is under process. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further states that concerned authority will consider petitioner’s application for Arms license in terms of the Rules in vogue.

6.

In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the fact that learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has not disputed the receipt of petitioner’s application for Arms license, the instant Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 herein to consider petitioner’s application for Arms License in accordance with the Rules in vogue and pass appropriate orders on merits, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner by way of Speed Post. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory application, pending if any, shall stand closed.