IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12/11/2007
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
Writ Petition No.4771 of 1999
V.N.Muthusamy ..Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Spl. Commissioner & Commissioner of Revenue Administration
Chepauk,
Chennai 5.
2. The Additional District Magistrate,
Erode District
Erode. ..Respondents.
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to
the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 29.8.97, made
in Mu.Mu.64486/97/C3 and confirmed by the first respondent
in his proceedings, dated 21.9.98, made in
Dis.RAV(2)16800/98 (AA 230/97), quash the same and
consequently, direct the respondents to consider the
petitioner’s application afresh for grant of licence to have
DBBL Gun.
For petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran
For respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan (R1)
Government Advocate
O R D E R
Heard, Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Mr.V.Manoharan, the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner is a permanent
resident of Parayar Koil Thottam, Arakkan Kottai,
Gopichettipalayam Taluk. The petitioner is owning 20 acres
of land in Arakkankottai Village, which is situated very
close to Sathyamangalam Forest. The petitioner is
cultivating sugarcane, turmeric and other crops. The house
of the petitioner is situated outside the village in a
remote place. The members of the petitioner’s family,
including his aged parents were living in the said house.
The petitioner had applied to the second respondent for the
grant of a licence for a Double Barrel Breech Loaded gun for
his personal safety and for crop protection. Pursuant to the
application made by the petitioner, the second respondent
had called for a report from the Tahsildar, Gopi and the
Superintendent of Police, Erode District. Though the
Superintendent of Police, Erode, had no adverse remarks
against the petitioner for granting the licence and the
Tahsildar, Gopi, had submitted a report without any adverse
remarks against the petitioner, the second respondent had
rejected the application by his order, dated 29.8.97, made
in Mu.Mu.64486/97/C3. The petitioner had preferred an
appeal, dated 11.9.97, to the first respondent. By an order,
dated 21.9.98, the first respondent had confirmed the order
of the second respondent, rejecting the application of the
petitioner.
3. The main contention of the petitioner is that since
no adverse remarks had been made against the petitioner’s
request, the respondents ought to have granted the licence,
in accordance with the provisions of law, as provided under
Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, which read as
follows:
13.Grant of licences:
(1) An application for the grant of a licence
under Chapter II shall be made to the licensing
authority and shall be in such form, contain such
particulars and be accompanied such fee, if any,
as may be prescribed.
(2) On receipt of an application, the
licensing authority shall call for the report of
the officer in charge of the nearest police
station on the application, and such officer shall
send his report within the prescribed time.
(2A) The licensing authority, after such
inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, and
after considering the report received under sub-
section (2), shall, subject to the other
provisions of this Chapter, by order in writing
either grant the licence or refuse to grant the
same.
PROVIDED that where the officer in charge of
the nearest police station does not send his
report on the application within the prescribed
time, the licensing authority may, if it deemed
fit make such order, after the expiry of the
prescribed time, without further waiting for that
report.
(3) The licensing authority shall grant –
(a) a licence under Section 3 where the
licence is required-
(i) by a citizen of India in respect of
a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than
twenty inches in length to be used for protection
or sport or in respect of muzzle loading gun to be
used for bona fide crop protection:
PROVIDED that where having regard to the
circumstances of any case, the licensing authority
is satisfied that a muzzle loading gun will not be
sufficient for crop protection, the licensing
authority may grant a licence in respect of any
other smooth bore gun as aforesaid for such
protection, or
(ii) in respect of a point 22 bore rifle
or an air rifle to be used for target practice by
a member of a rifle club or rifle association
licensed or recognized by the Central Government.
(b) a licence under Section 3 in any other
case or a licence section 4, Section5, Section 6,
Section 10 or Section 12, if the licensing
authority is satisfied that the person by whom the
licence is required has a good reason for
obtaining the same.
14. Refusal of licences:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Section 13,
licensing authority shall refused 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-
(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 mine, 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 process
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.”
4. Mr.V.Manoharan, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents had contested the claims made by
the petitioner and had submitted that the grant of licence
to the petitioner does not arise unless the petitioner could
show that there is such a necessity as required under law.
Since the petitioner had not proved before the authorities
concerned that there was a real threat to the petitioner or
his properties as alleged, the authorities were justified in
refusing to grant the licence as requested by the
petitioner.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had
referred to an order of this Court made in K.Mani Vs.
District Revenue Officer, Madurai and another (2007 (1) MLJ
(Crl.) 339), wherein the impugned order challenged in the
said writ petition had been set aside and the petitioner was
permitted to make a fresh application for grant of licence
to possess a gun as prescribed by law.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents had submitted that the facts of the case
referred to above would not be applicable to the present
case. Since the writ petitioner had not proved that the
grant of licence to the petitioner is for a bonafide reason,
the rejection of the request by the authorities concerned is
valid in accordance with the provisions of law.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court is
of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out
sufficient cause or reason to quash the impugned orders
passed by the respondents, as the onus is on the petitioner
to prove to the satisfaction of the respondents that it is
necessary for him to possess a licence for a Double Barrel
Breech Loaded gun. The respondents have held, by their
impugned orders, that the petitioner had not shown that such
a necessity had existed. However, it is made clear that it
is open to the petitioner to make a fresh application for
the grant of licence for a Double Barrel Breech Loaded gun,
as provided under law and on the petitioner making such an
application, the authorities concerned are expected to
consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits and
in accordance with law, without being bound by the earlier
impugned orders passed by the respondents.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands
dismissed. No costs.
csh
To
1. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration
Chepauk
Chennai 5.
2. The Additional District Magistrate
Erode District
Erode.