M. Duraisamy v. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 03.01.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALANW.P.No.912 OF 2002M.Duraisamy... Petitioner vs.1.The Principal Commissionerand Commissioner of RevenueAdministration,Chepauk, Chennai 600005.2.The District Magistrate andthe Collector,Sivaganga District.... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus toquash the order of the first respondent made in D.Dis.No.(R.A.5(1)77227/2000 A.A.No.150(A)/2000 dated 15.09.2000, after calling for therecords and perusing the same and direct the respondents to grantlicence to the petitioner for using the revolver.For Petitioner:Mr.N.Anand VenkateshFor Respondents:Mr.A.Edwin PrabakarAddl. Government PleaderO R D E RThis petition has been filed challenging the order of the firstrespondent dated 15.09.2000 made in D.Dis.No.(R.A.5(1) 77227/2000A.A.No.150(A)/2000 and for a direction to the respondents to grantlicence to the petitioner for using the revolver.2.The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is as under:(i)The petitioner's father Late D.MuthiahChettiar possessed a revolver No.A064907, Mark IV 32,Webby made in England and was having a valid licencefor the same. After his father's death on 22.02.1999,the petitioner surrendered the revolver to theInspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station on24.02.1999 with a covering letter, specificallymentioning that after the transfer of licence to hisname, he would take back the revolver in accordancewith law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii)The petitioner being a businessman carryingwide range of business, for the purpose of self-safetysubmitted the form of application for Arm Licence inaccordance with the Arms Act, 1959 before theCollector, Sivaganga District, the second respondent,on 29.07.1999. When the second respondent called for aReport, the Tahsildar, Manamadurai had even recommendedto grant licence to the petitioner. According to thepetitioner, his father who had licence to carry arevolver never misused it. But, in the case of thepetitioner, the second respondent on totally irrelevantand extraneous reasons, rejected his claim for grant oflicence and cancelled the licence, which stood in thename of his father by an order dated 15.09.2000.(iii)Aggrieved by the order of the secondrespondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal beforethe first respondent in accordance with the Arms Actand Rules, but the first respondent dismissed theappeal by order dated 05.10.2001. Challenging theorder of the first respondent, the petitioner has comebefore this Court for the aforesaid relief.3.In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, it isstated as follows:(i)The petitioner sought an arms licence to possessrevolver for self protection. The Superintendent of Police,Sivaganga did not recommend the case, as in view of the lawand order problem in and around Manamadurai and grant ofrevolver licence to the petitioner would thwart publicpeace. The need for a weapon did not merit consideration andtherefore, the reason adduced by the petitioner was notsustainable. (ii)The petitioner, residing at Manamadurai Town andTaluk, Sivaganga District applied for the issue of arevolver licence for his self-protection on 29.07.1999. Areport was called for on the application from theSuperintendent of Police, Sivaganga District, DistrictForest Officer, Sivaganga District and also from Tahsildar,Manamadurai. The District Forest Officer, Sivaganga in hisletter Na.Ka.No.5801/99, dated 09.09.1999 did not recommendfor the issue of revolver licence due to the existence ofwild life and endangered species in the area referred to inthe application. The Superintendent of Police, Sivaganga inhis letter No.G3/22968/99, dated 14.03.2000 also did notrecommend the issue of licence to the petitioner in view ofthe law and order problem in and around Manamadurai as itmay affect the public tranquility. But, the Tahsildar,Manamadurai in his Letter No.K.Dis.A5/7032/99, dated26.05.2000 recommended for the issue of revolver licence to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner as his father possessed a revolver and due tohis expiry on 22.02.1999, the weapon and licence may betransferred to the petitioner.(iii)A notice to the petitioner for personal hearingon 21.07.2000 was sent in second respondent's LetterNo.Roc.D1/45019/99, dated 04.07.2000 and after hearing thepetitioner, the second respondent passed orders in hisproceedings No.K.Dis.D1/45019/99, dated 15.09.2000 rejectingthe request of the petitioner for the issue of a revolverlicence. Against the said order, the petitioner filed anappeal before the first respondent and after personallyhearing the counsel for the petitioner on 17.09.2001 andafter carefully examining the appeal with connected records,the first respondent passed orders in his proceedingsNo.D.Dis.RA.5(1)/77227/2000, dated 12.10.2001 rejecting theappeal on the ground that he had not established any strongand valid reasons for possession of a weapon. His only pleawas transfer of licence should be done as per Government ofIndia's letter dated 28.02.1995. The said letter speaksabout the transfer of weapon of prohibited categories to thelegal heirs, but in the present case, the application ismade in respect of non-prohibited category for which thereare no rules providing for automatic transfer.(iv)The father of the petitioner is a licensee andthere is no complaint against him. After the demise of hisfather, the revolver was deposited in the Police Station.When a new licence is to be given to a member of his family,the usual reports from the concerned departmentalauthorities were obtained and personal hearing of theindividual done. The issue of new licence was rejected onlydue to the possibilities of law and order problem andcommunal clashes prevailing in that area and it is correctas per records and as per rules in force.In such circumstances, the respondents pleaded that thewrit petition is devoid of merits and that the same isliable to be dismissed.4.Heard Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned Addl. Government Pleaderfor the respondents.5.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that therespondents failed to see that the father of the petitioner washolding a valid licence and not even a single incident of unauthoriseduse of revolver was reported and that the petitioner is a businessmancarrying a wide range of business like tile works, cement and IMFLshops and he would need a revolver for his personal safety. He alsocontended that the respondents failed to see that the law and orderproblem as reported by the Superintendent of Police is too general aground to reject the licence and in fact the licence was sought onlyfor personal safety and that the petitioner had deposited the revolver https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ immediately after the death of his father which itself would go toshow that he is a law abiding citizen and will never misuse thelicence. 6.Learned counsel further contended that the rejection ofgranting licence on the ground of existence of wild life near thepetitioner's area as reported by the District Forest Officer is notrelevant to the present facts since, revolver is never used forhunting. It is his further case that the Government of India itselfhas recommended transfer of licence to legal heirs of licence holderand that the order passed by the respondents rejecting the grant oflicence to the petitioner without assigning any reason is a non-speaking one. 7.On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleaderappearing for the respondents submitted that while considering theissue of a licence, an administrative report of the subordinateofficers would be obtained and that in the case of the petitioner, areport from the District Forest Officer, Sivaganga was obtained and hedid not recommend the petitioner's case in view of the existence ofwild life and endangered species referred to in the application;moreover, when a new licence is to be given to a member of a family oranybody, usual reports from the concerned departmental authoritieswould be obtained and personal hearing of the individual done; onpersonal hearing of the petitioner, the issue of new licence wasrejected only due to the possibilities of law and order problem andcommunal clashes prevailing in that area.8.Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted thatthe petitioner's only plea was transfer of licence of holding arevolver in his favour as per the letter of the Government of India,which speaks about the transfer of weapon of prohibited categories tothe legal heirs, whereas, in the present case, the application was fornon-prohibited category for which there are no rules providing forautomatic transfer. In order to substantiate his case, the learnedAdditional Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court thatthe area where the petitioner resides is prone to violence and thisaspect has been taken due note of by the respondents while rejectingthe case of the petitioner. According to him, the orders of therespondents rejecting the application of the petitioner for transferand grant of licence to carry a revolver are correct as per recordsand as per rules in force.9.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and haveconsidered the various documents filed in support of their case.10.It is seen that the petitioner's father possessed a revolvermade in England and was having a valid licence for the same. Afterhis father's death on 22.02.1999, the petitioner surrendered therevolver to the Inspector of Police Manamadurai Police Station on24.02.1999. While surrendering the revolver, the petitioner hadstated in the covering letter that after transfer of licence in his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ name, he would take back the revolver in accordance with law.Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application in the prescribedformat on 29.07.1999 for Arm Licence before the second respondentclaiming that he is a businessman carrying a wide range of businessand he is in need of a revolver for his self-safety. On receipt ofthe petitioner's application, the second respondent called for areport of the Tahsildar, Manamadurai, who, in turn, had recommendedfor grant of licence to the petitioner. Despite the petitioner'sclaim that though his father had a licence to carry a revolver, he hadnever misused the same, the second respondent rejected thepetitioner's application for grant of licence in his order dated15.09.2000 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before thefirst respondent, the appellate authority. His appeal also came to berejected by the first respondent by confirming the order of the secondrespondent. These two orders of the respondents are under challengein this writ petition.11.Before proceeding to deal with the matter, it would berelevant to refer to Section 13 (1) and (2) of the Act which run asunder:“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 by 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 that application,and such officer shall send his report within theprescribed time.”A.The licensing authority, after suchinquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary,and after considering the report received undersub-section (2), shall, subject to the otherprovisions of this Chapter, by order in writingeither grant the licence or refuse to grant thesame;Provided that where the officerin charge of the nearest policestation does not send his report onthe application within the prescribedtime, the licensing authority may, itit deems fit, make such order, afterthe expiry of the prescribed time,without further waiting for thatreport." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.The point arising for consideration in this petition iswhether the original authority and the appellate authority haveconsidered the petitioner's application for grant /transfer of licencein accordance with the provisions of the Act, by properly applyingtheir mind and subject to their satisfaction.13.It is seen that before the Original Authority, the petitionermade an application with the required particulars and before theappellate authority, his consistent plea was that his father's licenceto have a revolver should be automatically transferred to himconsidering his legal heirship. The petitioner's main stand is that ashis father was having a licence for carrying revolver, it has to betransferred to his name as per the Government of India letter dated28.02.1995. Admittedly, the petitioner's application is for a licenceto carry a weapon of non-prohibited category and the main purpose forwhich he wants to carry a revolver is towards his self-safety. Inother words, he had sought licence to carry revolver in order that hecould protect himself from the wild animals in and around the placewhere he resides. An analysis of the Government of India letter dated28.02.1995 reveals that it speaks of transfer of weapons of prohibitedcategories to the legal heirs. On the other hand, in the instantcase, the application is for a non-prohibited category of weapon forwhich no rules have been provided for automatic transfer. At the costof repetition, it has to be stated that the petitioner's applicationseeking licence is in respect of a weapon of non-prohibited categoryfor which there are no rules prescribing automatic transfer to legalheirs. This aspect of the matter has been taken cognizance of by thefirst respondent, the original authority and the second respondent,the appellate authority, while rejecting the petitioner's applicationfor grant of licence. Thus, it is made clear that they have passedthe orders impugned in this petition with due application of mind andsubjective satisfaction.14.The other contentions raised on the side of the petitionerare that the respondents ought to have taken note of therecommendation of the Tahsildar, Manamadurai and his deposition duringthe enquiry has not been discussed in the impugned orders of thesecond respondent.15.From the discussions made above, it is seen that therespondents have taken into consideration the reports given by theDistrict Forest Officer and the Superintendent of Police. Thereasoning given by the former for not recommending grant of licence isthe existence of wild life and endangered species in the areaspecified in the petitioner's application. Similarly, the latter hasnot recommended grant of licence to the petitioner on the ground thatManamadurai and the area surrounding it are prone to violenceresulting in law and order problem. Thus, on an overall analysis ofthe report of the District Forest Officer, the Superintendent ofPolice and the Tahsildar, the respondents have thought it fit not togrant licence to the petitioner and have accordingly rejected hisapplication. The stand taken by the respondents in rejecting the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner's case, in my opinion, does not warrant interference bythis Court inasmuch as they have taken due note of the real situationand the actualities prevailing in the area where the petitionerresides and the petitioner also, for his part, has not substantiatedhis case there is threat perception. That apart, it is to be notedthat the petitioner has moved this Court in 2002 and till the matterwas taken up for final hearing, he does not seem to have made out anycase of threat during this period of about five years.For the reasons stated above and in the absence of any legalinfirmity in the orders under challenge, I do not find any merit inthis writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed without anyorder as to costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarabeTo1.The Principal Commissionerand Commissioner of RevenueAdministration,Chepauk, Chennai 600005.2.The District Magistrate andthe Collector, Sivaganga District.1 cc To Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh, Advocate, SR.411.W.P.No.912 OF 2002 VC(CO)RVL 11.01.2008