- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2090 WP No. 100977 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.100977 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI. ASHOK S/O. RAMACHANDRA ANVEKAR, AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. RTD. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PRESENTLY ADVOCATE RES AT. PLOT NO. 112, CENTRAL EXCISE COLONY, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580030. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOURISHANKAR H.MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ADDL. DIST. MAGISTRATE HUBBALLI-DHARWAD CITY, HUBBALLI-580025. 3. POLICE INSPECTOR, GOKUL ROAD POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI-580030. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED: 12/01/2026 NO:CP/MAG-1/ARMS/188/2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO AUTHORITY TO RETURN THE WEAPON, WHICH IS SEIZED AND TO ISSUE RENEWED LICENSE, TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE- F AND J IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. C) ISSUE SUCH OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2090 WP No. 100977 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “a) ISSUE a writ in the nature of Certiorari to QUASH the impugned endorsement Dated: 12/01/2026 No:CP/MAG-1/ARMS/188/2024 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A, in the interest of justice and equity. b) ISSUE a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to authority to return the weapon, which is seized and to issue Renewed License, to the Petitioner vide Annexure- F and J in the interest of justice and equity. c) ISSUE such other writ or order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he is a retired Superintendent of Police and is presently practicing as an Advocate at Hubballi. During his service as police officer, he had come across many notorious criminals, communal goondas, murderers, terrorists, etc. Among these, many were arrested and many were convicted. Hence, the petitioner is having a threat of life for himself and his family members. The petitioner during his service as police officer had obtained the arms licence - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2090 WP No. 100977 of 2026 for weapon after inspection and training conducted in accordance with law i.e. on 31.03.2006. Later, after the retirement from police department in the year 2013, he shifted to Hubballi and is residing in his own house with his family members and his licence has been renewed from time to time. Petitioner transferred the arms licence from Additional District Magistrate, Deputy Commissioner, Bidar to Hubballi and the last renewal was done in the year 2024. On 24.08.2024, the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No.2 seeking renewal of the licence for a period of 5 years for his weapon. On 06.05.2025, the respondent No.3 seized and deposited the weapon in Gokul Road Police Station and gave a report. On 20.08.2025, during the inquiry, the petitioner submitted his detailed statement and medical fitness certificate to show that he is physically fit in the process of renewal of the arms licence by the respondent No.3. The respondent No.2 has passed the order impugned before this Court on 12.01.2026. The respondent No.2 without considering the detailed statement and medical fitness certificate of the petitioner, rejected the application for renewal of the arms licence on the ground that the petitioner is 71 years of age and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2090 WP No. 100977 of 2026 therefore, there is no threat to his life warranting renewal of the licence. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, considering the fact that the petitioner worked as a Superintendent of Police and the life threat he has, the respondent No.2 ought not to have rejected the application filed by the petitioner for renewal of arms licence. Further, when the physical fitness certificate is submitted before the respondents, the respondent No.2 ought to have considered it and while passing the order, he should have stated on what basis the petitioner is unfit for issuance of licence as per Section 14(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act’). It is submitted that the order that is passed by the respondent No.2 is bereft of reasons and without application of mind. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that, considering the age of of the petitioner as 71 years and as there is no life threat, the respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the request for renewal of the arms licence and there are no reasons to interfere. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2090 WP No. 100977 of 2026 5. Having heard the counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The petitioner is a retired Superintendent of Police and he is having an arms licence from the year 2006 which is renewed upto 2024. Now, by way of impugned order dated 12.01.2026, his request for renewal of arms licence is rejected by the respondent No.2 on the ground that he is unfit and there is no threat. As far as his fitness is concerned, he has placed the medical reports. In the impugned order, it is not stated basing on what material he has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is unfit. Further, the order does not disclose on what basis respondent had concluded that there is no threat to the petitioner’s life. 6. Before going into the merits of the matter, it is appropriate to look at Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 which deals with refusal of licence: “14. Refusal of licences.―(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant― (a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition; (b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,― (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe— - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2090 WP No. 100977 of 2026 (1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition; or (2) to be of unsound mind; or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or (ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. (2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property. (3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.” 7. In the light of the above provision, the respondent No.2 can grant, renew, refuse the licence. According to the learned Additional Government Advocate and as stated in the impugned order, the petitioner has been found unfit. When an order is passed under the provisions of the Act, the order should disclose the detailed reasons. In this, the order impugned is bereft of reasons and the same needs to be set-aside. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER (i) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the endorsement dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2090 WP No. 100977 of 2026 12.01.2026 bearing No.CP/ MAG-1/ ARMS/ 188/ 2024 passed by the respondent No.2. (ii) Respondent No.2 shall consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of the arms licence in accordance with the Arms Act, 1959 and the rules thereunder. (iii) The respondents shall pass a reasoned order. (iv) All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI RH CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15