APHC010565302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1160 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-8 [3446] Syed Iqbal Ahmed ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Singuluri Seshagiri Rao Advocate for Respondents : GP for Home CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 6th November, 2025 P C : The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 24.06.2025 passed in WP.No.9746 of 2024. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under: The petitioner appears to have participated in an auction for sale of arms conducted by the official respondents pursuant to their notification issued in the year 2008. The petitioner appears to have participated in the said auction proceedings which were subsequently cancelled on 21.07.2008. 2 HCJ & RRR,J WA_1160_2025 The petitioner kept quiet from 21.07.2008 but filed a writ petition as late as in the year 2013 seeking a Mandamus against the respondents to release 139 weapons for which the petitioner had submitted the bid. No Mandamus was issued as had been prayed for by the petitioner in the writ petition bearing No.31450 of 2013 and the same was disposed of on the ground that the petitioner ought to have challenged the cancellation proceedings in accordance with law. After the judgment was rendered in WP.No.31450 of 2013, the petitioner filed WP.No.9746 of 2024 this time challenging the order of cancellation. It is not out of place here to mention that in the interregnum the official respondents had conducted an auction yet again for the arms in question and the same were sold to a third party who was not made a party respondent in the present writ petition. The learned single Judge having considered the matter on merits came to a conclusion that no purpose would be served in entertaining the writ petition as the property which was the subject matter of auction was not in possession of the respondents and, therefore, no direction could be given to deliver the goods which were put to auction yet again. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the view expressed by the learned single Judge that there was yet another auction 3 HCJ & RRR,J WA_1160_2025 conducted by the official respondents and the property had ceased to be in possession of the respondents was a fact which was not correct and that the arms in question were still in possession of the official respondents. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the entire issue which has been raked up by the appellant in the present writ appeal ought not to have been permitted to be entertained at all inasmuch as the order of cancellation was passed as early as on 21.07.2008 and the first round of litigation which was initiated by the appellant was only in the year 2013 by way of WP.No.31450 of 2013. If the learned single Judge had considered the judgment of the Apex Court rendered by a Constitution Bench in the case of State of MP v. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], then the petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself. Even in the second round initiated by the appellant, we feel that the writ petition was clearly barred by delay and laches. 5. Be that as it may, assuming that the assertion of the appellant’s counsel that the arms still continued to remain in possession of the official respondents is taken as correct, yet, we would not like to interfere with the decision of the official respondents to cancel the auction earlier carried out in the year 2008 for the reason as can be seen from the counter-affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police in WP.No.31450 of 2013 wherein it is stated 4 HCJ & RRR,J WA_1160_2025 specifically that there was a representation submitted by the Arms Dealer Association of Andhra Pradesh stating that the appellant – Syed Iqbal Ahmed had managed four arm dealers by taking them into confidence by promising to pay Rs.18,000/- to each of them for not offering bids during the auction and that they had formed a syndicate which lead to the bid submitted by him becoming successful; while the actual market rate for the guns ran into lakhs of rupees, the bid submitted by the appellant was only for an amount of Rs.62,710/-. 6. 6. Be that as it may, we cannot persuade ourselves to take a view different from the one taken by the learned single Judge as we feel that the issues raised in the present writ petition filed are barred by delay and laches and have become stale. 7. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Vjl