1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition (MD)No.4133 of 2011 Jeyakaranponsingh ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli. 2.The Principal Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 3.The Special Commissioner cum Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to issue a revolver license on petitioner's letter dated 20.05.2009. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Patturajan For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramanian, Additional Government Pleader. O R D E R The petitioner had applied for a revolver licence as early as on 19.03.2007. His application was rejected and as against the rejection order of the Commissioner of Police, the first respondent herein, he has to prefer an appeal before the Special Commissioner cum Commissioner of Revenue Administration. Accordingly, he preferred an appeal as early as on 20.05.2009. But till date, he has not received any notice or any communication from the appellate authority. Hence, he has come forward with this writ petition for a Mandamus, directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal. 2.On instructions, learned Additional Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that the appeal was presented before the wrong forum namely the Commissioner of Revenue Administration but whereas it has to be presented before the Home Secretary and now they have transferred the file to the Home https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Secretary and he has also fixed a date for enquiry on 27.04.2011. He would further contend that the petitioner can appear and put forward his case before the Home Secretary on that date and when the matter is pending consideration by the appellate authority, the appellate authority will pass orders on the appeal after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law. 3.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 4.The only apprehension of the petitioner is that the appellate authority has to give sufficient opportunity and also has to take into consideration the relevant provision of law which entitles a person to seek for the grant of licence and according to him, he is eligible to get licence under Rule 3 of the Arms Act and for rejection the authorities have to strictly follow Rules 9 and 14 of the Arms Act. The contention of the petitioner is that the authorities will not follow the provision of law, may not be taken as correct but at the same time, since the Home Secretary himself has already fixed the date for hearing on 27.04.2011, it is for the appellate authority to decide the matter in accordance with the provision of the Arms Act 1959 and pass orders after giving opportunity to the petitioner. 5.With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli. 2.The Principal Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 3.The Special Commissioner cum Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. +1cc to Mr.M.Patturajan, Advocate, Sr.No.14746 Writ Petition (MD)No.4133 of 2011 25.04.2011 sms SMA/26.4.2011/5C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/