IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.01.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.No.912 OF 2002 M.Duraisamy ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600005. 2. The District Magistrate and the Collector, Sivaganga District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash 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 the records and perusing the same and direct the respondents to grant licence to the petitioner for using the revolver. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar Addl. Government Pleader O R D E R This petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 15.09.2000 made in D.Dis.No.(R.A.5(1) 77227/2000 A.A.No.150(A)/2000 and for a direction to the respondents to grant licence 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.Muthiah Chettiar possessed a revolver No.A064907, Mark IV 32, Webby made in England and was having a valid licence for the same. After his father's death on 22.02.1999, the petitioner surrendered the revolver to the Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station on 24.02.1999 with a covering letter, specifically mentioning that after the transfer of licence to his name, he would take back the revolver in accordance with law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) The petitioner being a businessman carrying wide range of business, for the purpose of self-safety submitted the form of application for Arm Licence in accordance with the Arms Act, 1959 before the Collector, Sivaganga District, the second respondent, on 29.07.1999. When the second respondent called for a Report, the Tahsildar, Manamadurai had even recommended to grant licence to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, his father who had licence to carry a revolver never misused it. But, in the case of the petitioner, the second respondent on totally irrelevant and extraneous reasons, rejected his claim for grant of licence and cancelled the licence, which stood in the name of his father by an order dated 15.09.2000. (iii) Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent in accordance with the Arms Act and Rules, but the first respondent dismissed the appeal by order dated 05.10.2001. Challenging the order of the first respondent, the petitioner has come before this Court for the aforesaid relief. 3. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated as follows: (i) The petitioner sought an arms licence to possess revolver for self protection. The Superintendent of Police, Sivaganga did not recommend the case, as in view of the law and order problem in and around Manamadurai and grant of revolver licence to the petitioner would thwart public peace. The need for a weapon did not merit consideration and therefore, the reason adduced by the petitioner was not sustainable. (ii) The petitioner, residing at Manamadurai Town and Taluk, Sivaganga District applied for the issue of a revolver licence for his self-protection on 29.07.1999. A report was called for on the application from the Superintendent of Police, Sivaganga District, District Forest Officer, Sivaganga District and also from Tahsildar, Manamadurai. The District Forest Officer, Sivaganga in his letter Na.Ka.No.5801/99, dated 09.09.1999 did not recommend for the issue of revolver licence due to the existence of wild life and endangered species in the area referred to in the application. The Superintendent of Police, Sivaganga in his letter No.G3/22968/99, dated 14.03.2000 also did not recommend the issue of licence to the petitioner in view of the law and order problem in and around Manamadurai as it may affect the public tranquility. But, the Tahsildar, Manamadurai in his Letter No.K.Dis.A5/7032/99, dated 26.05.2000 recommended for the issue of revolver licence to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner as his father possessed a revolver and due to his expiry on 22.02.1999, the weapon and licence may be transferred to the petitioner. (iii) A notice to the petitioner for personal hearing on 21.07.2000 was sent in second respondent's Letter No.Roc.D1/45019/99, dated 04.07.2000 and after hearing the petitioner, the second respondent passed orders in his proceedings No.K.Dis.D1/45019/99, dated 15.09.2000 rejecting the request of the petitioner for the issue of a revolver licence. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent and after personally hearing the counsel for the petitioner on 17.09.2001 and after carefully examining the appeal with connected records, the first respondent passed orders in his proceedings No.D.Dis.RA.5(1)/77227/2000, dated 12.10.2001 rejecting the appeal on the ground that he had not established any strong and valid reasons for possession of a weapon. His only plea was transfer of licence should be done as per Government of India's letter dated 28.02.1995. The said letter speaks about the transfer of weapon of prohibited categories to the legal heirs, but in the present case, the application is made in respect of non-prohibited category for which there are no rules providing for automatic transfer. (iv) The father of the petitioner is a licensee and there is no complaint against him. After the demise of his father, 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 departmental authorities were obtained and personal hearing of the individual done. The issue of new licence was rejected only due to the possibilities of law and order problem and communal clashes prevailing in that area and it is correct as per records and as per rules in force. In such circumstances, the respondents pleaded that the writ petition is devoid of merits and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned Addl. Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents failed to see that the father of the petitioner was holding a valid licence and not even a single incident of unauthorised use of revolver was reported and that the petitioner is a businessman carrying a wide range of business like tile works, cement and IMFL shops and he would need a revolver for his personal safety. He also contended that the respondents failed to see that the law and order problem as reported by the Superintendent of Police is too general a ground to reject the licence and in fact the licence was sought only for 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 to show that he is a law abiding citizen and will never misuse the licence. 6. Learned counsel further contended that the rejection of granting licence on the ground of existence of wild life near the petitioner's area as reported by the District Forest Officer is not relevant to the present facts since, revolver is never used for hunting. It is his further case that the Government of India itself has recommended transfer of licence to legal heirs of licence holder and that the order passed by the respondents rejecting the grant of licence to the petitioner without assigning any reason is a non- speaking one. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that while considering the issue of a licence, an administrative report of the subordinate officers would be obtained and that in the case of the petitioner, a report from the District Forest Officer, Sivaganga was obtained and he did not recommend the petitioner's case in view of the existence of wild life and endangered species referred to in the application; moreover, when a new licence is to be given to a member of a family or anybody, usual reports from the concerned departmental authorities would be obtained and personal hearing of the individual done; on personal hearing of the petitioner, the issue of new licence was rejected only due to the possibilities of law and order problem and communal clashes prevailing in that area. 8. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioner's only plea was transfer of licence of holding a revolver in his favour as per the letter of the Government of India, which speaks about the transfer of weapon of prohibited categories to the legal heirs, whereas, in the present case, the application was for non-prohibited category for which there are no rules providing for automatic transfer. In order to substantiate his case, the learned Additional Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that the area where the petitioner resides is prone to violence and this aspect has been taken due note of by the respondents while rejecting the case of the petitioner. According to him, the orders of the respondents rejecting the application of the petitioner for transfer and grant of licence to carry a revolver are correct as per records and as per rules in force. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the various documents filed in support of their case. 10. It is seen that the petitioner's father possessed a revolver made in England and was having a valid licence for the same. After his father's death on 22.02.1999, the petitioner surrendered the revolver to the Inspector of Police Manamadurai Police Station on 24.02.1999. While surrendering the revolver, the petitioner had stated 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 prescribed format on 29.07.1999 for Arm Licence before the second respondent claiming that he is a businessman carrying a wide range of business and he is in need of a revolver for his self-safety. On receipt of the petitioner's application, the second respondent called for a report of the Tahsildar, Manamadurai, who, in turn, had recommended for grant of licence to the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's claim that though his father had a licence to carry a revolver, he had never misused the same, the second respondent rejected the petitioner's application for grant of licence in his order dated 15.09.2000 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent, the appellate authority. His appeal also came to be rejected by the first respondent by confirming the order of the second respondent. These two orders of the respondents are under challenge in this writ petition. 11. Before proceeding to deal with the matter, it would be relevant to refer to Section 13 (1) and (2) of the Act which run as under: “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 by 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 that application, and such officer shall send his report within the prescribed time.” A. 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, it it deems fit, make such order, after the expiry of the prescribed time, without further waiting for that report." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12. The point arising for consideration in this petition is whether the original authority and the appellate authority have considered the petitioner's application for grant /transfer of licence in accordance with the provisions of the Act, by properly applying their mind and subject to their satisfaction. 13. It is seen that before the Original Authority, the petitioner made an application with the required particulars and before the appellate authority, his consistent plea was that his father's licence to have a revolver should be automatically transferred to him considering his legal heirship. The petitioner's main stand is that as his father was having a licence for carrying revolver, it has to be transferred to his name as per the Government of India letter dated 28.02.1995. Admittedly, the petitioner's application is for a licence to carry a weapon of non-prohibited category and the main purpose for which he wants to carry a revolver is towards his self-safety. In other words, he had sought licence to carry revolver in order that he could protect himself from the wild animals in and around the place where he resides. An analysis of the Government of India letter dated 28.02.1995 reveals that it speaks of transfer of weapons of prohibited categories to the legal heirs. On the other hand, in the instant case, the application is for a non-prohibited category of weapon for which no rules have been provided for automatic transfer. At the cost of repetition, it has to be stated that the petitioner's application seeking licence is in respect of a weapon of non-prohibited category for which there are no rules prescribing automatic transfer to legal heirs. This aspect of the matter has been taken cognizance of by the first respondent, the original authority and the second respondent, the appellate authority, while rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of licence. Thus, it is made clear that they have passed the orders impugned in this petition with due application of mind and subjective satisfaction. 14. The other contentions raised on the side of the petitioner are that the respondents ought to have taken note of the recommendation of the Tahsildar, Manamadurai and his deposition during the enquiry has not been discussed in the impugned orders of the second respondent. 15. From the discussions made above, it is seen that the respondents have taken into consideration the reports given by the District Forest Officer and the Superintendent of Police. The reasoning given by the former for not recommending grant of licence is the existence of wild life and endangered species in the area specified in the petitioner's application. Similarly, the latter has not recommended grant of licence to the petitioner on the ground that Manamadurai and the area surrounding it are prone to violence resulting in law and order problem. Thus, on an overall analysis of the report of the District Forest Officer, the Superintendent of Police and the Tahsildar, the respondents have thought it fit not to grant licence to the petitioner and have accordingly rejected his application. 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 by this Court inasmuch as they have taken due note of the real situation and the actualities prevailing in the area where the petitioner resides and the petitioner also, for his part, has not substantiated his case there is threat perception. That apart, it is to be noted that the petitioner has moved this Court in 2002 and till the matter was taken up for final hearing, he does not seem to have made out any case of threat during this period of about five years. For the reasons stated above and in the absence of any legal infirmity in the orders under challenge, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed without any order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar abe To 1. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600005. 2. The District Magistrate and the 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/