- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47714 WP No. 27834 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 27834 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: MR. DAVID WILLIAM DSOUZA S/O. WILLIAM D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT 2/221, PRINCE PALACE, PRINCE POINT, PERNALU POST, PILAR, UDUPI - 574 116. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH SHETTY T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, (LAW AND ADMINISTRATION), VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI - 576 101. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI - 576 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. ARM(1)CR119/2021-22 C6 E-73931 DATED 05-09-2024 AT ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY THE R2, AND WITH Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47714 WP No. 27834 of 2024 A FURTHER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 12-06-2024 OF THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-E FOR RENEWAL OF LICENCE OF 0.25 PISTOL OF THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before the Court seeking for the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction, as the case may be, quashing the Endorsement bearing No. ARM(1 CR119/2021-22 C6 E- 73931 dated 5/9/2024 at Annexure G issued by the Respondent No.2, and with a further direction, directing the Respondent to consider the application dated 12/6/2024 of the Petitioner at Annexure E for renewal of Licence of 0.25 Pistol of the Petitioner. (b) Pass such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. Prince Infracon Company, doing the business of major Civil Contractor Works. The petitioner, to protect himself, had applied for and obtained a license for a 0.25 Pistol / Revolver, for which a license was issued on 16.02.2010. The license having been renewed till 2015, the application for renewal of license was denied on the ground that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47714 WP No. 27834 of 2024 there was criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1715/2015, which is pending. The petitioner approached the Appellate Authority, the appellate authority had, by its order dated 28.10.2017 permitted the petitioner to file a fresh application after the disposal of the criminal proceedings. 3. The criminal proceedings having ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 25.06.2021, the petitioner filed a fresh application. The said application came to be rejected on the ground that in the last 10 years there was no threat perception for the life of the petitioner and as such, the renewal cannot be made. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once a license had been granted, it was but required for the renewal to be effected, more so when the Appellate Authority had permitted the petitioner to file an application for renewal after the disposal of the criminal proceedings. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47714 WP No. 27834 of 2024 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate would, however, seek to support the impugned order by contending that for a renewal under Section 15 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, "the Act"), the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 of the Act, which relates to the grant of license, would apply and as such, all the circumstances which are required to be considered at the time of grant of license could also be considered at the time of renewal of license. Threat perception being one of the considerations for the grant of license, has also been considered at the time of renewal of the license. 6. Having heard Sri. Sandesh T., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Sidarth Baburao, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused papers. 7. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate inasmuch as a license having been earlier issued, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner having ended in acquittal, there is no complaint or allegation against the petitioner which is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47714 WP No. 27834 of 2024 in currency or force as on date. Refusal of license can be made under Section 14 of the Act for the reasons as mentioned therein and variance suspension or revocation of license could be made in terms of Section 17 of the 0Act, for the reasons mentioned therein. 8. Neither Section 14 nor Section 17 of the Act provides for the threat perception to be a ground for renewal of licence, though a threat perception could be a ground to be considered at the time of granting a license. Once a license has been granted, the question of once again insisting that threat perception should continue would not arise. At the most, action could be taken only under Section 17 of the Act and no such action having been taken, the question of denial of the renewal application submitted by the petitioner would not arise. As such, I pass the following: O R D E R i) The writ petition is allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47714 WP No. 27834 of 2024 ii) A Certiorari is issued. The endorsement bearing No.ARM(1)CR119/2021-22 C6 E-73931 dated 05.09.2024 at Annexure-G is hereby quashed. iii) Respondents are directed to consider the application dated 12.06.2024 submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-E without reference to threat perception as indicated Supra and pass necessary orders within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42