V.N.Muthusamy v. The Special Commissioner andCommissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk,Chennai-5.2.The Additional District Magistrate,Erode District

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12-11-2007CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.4771 of 1999V.N.Muthusamy.. Petitioner.Versus1.The Special Commissioner andCommissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk,Chennai-5.2.The Additional District Magistrate,Erode District, Erode... Respondents.Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2ndrespondent, dated 29.8.97, made in Mu.Mu.64486/97/C3 and confirmedby the first respondent in his proceedings, dated 21.9.98, made inDis.RAV(2)16800/98 (AA 230/97), quash the same and consequently,direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's applicationafresh 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 RHeard, Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr.V.Manoharan, the learned Government Advocateappearing for the respondents. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is a permanent residentof 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. Thepetitioner is cultivating sugarcane, turmeric and other crops. Thehouse of the petitioner is situated outside the village in a remote https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ place. The members of the petitioner's family, including his agedparents were living in the said house. The petitioner had applied tothe second respondent for the grant of a licence for a Double BarrelBreech Loaded gun for his personal safety and for crop protection.Pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, the secondrespondent had called for a report from the Tahsildar, Gopi and theSuperintendent of Police, Erode District. Though the Superintendentof Police, Erode, had no adverse remarks against the petitioner forgranting the licence and the Tahsildar, Gopi, had submitted a reportwithout any adverse remarks against the petitioner, the secondrespondent 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 secondrespondent, rejecting the application of the petitioner. 3. The main contention of the petitioner is that since noadverse remarks had been made against the petitioner's request, therespondents ought to have granted the licence, in accordance withthe provisions of law, as provided under Sections 13 and 14 of theArms Act, 1959, which read as follows:13.Grant of licences:(1) An application for the grant of a licence underChapter II shall be made to the licensing authority andshall be in such form, contain such particulars and beaccompanied such fee, if any, as may be prescribed.(2) On receipt of an application, the licensingauthority shall call for the report of the officer incharge of the nearest police station on the application,and such officer shall send his report within theprescribed time.(2A) The licensing authority, after such inquiry, ifany, as it may consider necessary, and after consideringthe report received under sub-section (2), shall, subjectto the other provisions of this Chapter, by order inwriting either grant the licence or refuse to grant thesame.PROVIDED that where the officer in charge of thenearest police station does not send his report on theapplication within the prescribed time, the licensingauthority may, if it deemed fit make such order, after theexpiry of the prescribed time, without further waiting forthat report.(3) The licensing authority shall grant -(a) a licence under Section 3 where the licence isrequired-(i) by a citizen of India in respect of a smoothbore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty inches inlength to be used for protection or sport or in respect of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ muzzle loading gun to be used for bona fide cropprotection:PROVIDED that where having regard to thecircumstances of any case, the licensing authority issatisfied that a muzzle loading gun will not be sufficientfor crop protection, the licensing authority may grant alicence in respect of any other smooth bore gun asaforesaid for such protection, or(ii) in respect of a point 22 bore rifle or anair rifle to be used for target practice by a member of arifle club or rifle association licensed or recognized bythe Central Government.(b) a licence under Section 3 in any other case or alicence section 4, Section5, Section 6, Section 10 orSection 12, if the licensing authority is satisfied thatthe person by whom the licence is required has a goodreason for obtaining the same.14. Refusal of licences: (1) Notwithstanding anything in Section 13, licensingauthority shall refused to grant,-(a) a licence under Section 3, Section 4 orSection 5 where such licence is required in respect of anyprohibited arms or prohibited ammunition;(b) a licence in any other case under ChapterII,-(i) where such licence is required by a person whomthe licensing authority has reason to believe-(1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any otherlaw for the time being in force from acquiring, having inhis possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or(2) to be of unsound mine, or(3) to be for any reason unfit for a licenceunder this Act; or(ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessaryfor the security of the public peace or for public safetyto refuse to grant such licence.(2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grantany licence to any person merely on the ground that suchperson does not own or process sufficient property.(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant alicence to any person it shall record in writing thereasons for such refusal and furnish to that person ondemand a brief statement of the same unless in any casethe licensing authority is of the opinion that it will notbe in the public interest to furnish such statement." 4. Mr.V.Manoharan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe respondents had contested the claims made by the petitioner andhad submitted that the grant of licence to the petitioner does notarise unless the petitioner could show that there is such a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ necessity as required under law. Since the petitioner had not provedbefore the authorities concerned that there was a real threat to thepetitioner or his properties as alleged, the authorities werejustified in refusing to grant the licence as requested by thepetitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hadreferred to an order of this Court made in K.Mani Vs. DistrictRevenue Officer, Madurai and another (2007 (1) MLJ (Crl.) 339),wherein the impugned order challenged in the said writ petition hadbeen set aside and the petitioner was permitted to make a freshapplication for grant of licence to possess a gun as prescribed bylaw. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentshad submitted that the facts of the case referred to above would notbe applicable to the present case. Since the writ petitioner had notproved that the grant of licence to the petitioner is for a bonafidereason, the rejection of the request by the authorities concerned isvalid in accordance with the provisions of law. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the parties concerned, this Court is of the consideredview that the petitioner has not made out sufficient cause or reasonto quash the impugned orders passed by the respondents, as the onusis on the petitioner to prove to the satisfaction of the respondentsthat it is necessary for him to possess a licence for a DoubleBarrel Breech Loaded gun. The respondents have held, by theirimpugned orders, that the petitioner had not shown that such anecessity had existed. However, it is made clear that it is open tothe petitioner to make a fresh application for the grant of licencefor a Double Barrel Breech Loaded gun, as provided under law and onthe petitioner making such an application, the authorities concernedare expected to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, onmerits and in accordance with law, without being bound by theearlier impugned orders passed by the respondents.With the above observations, the writ petition standsdismissed. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarcsh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Special Commissioner andCommissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk,Chennai-5.2.The Additional District Magistrate,Erode District, Erode.+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 67286+1cc to Mr.N.Manokaran, Advocate Sr 67069SJ (CO)km/20.11.Writ Petition No.4771 of 1999