IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 13.10.2008 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.6564 of 1998 P.Stephen ...Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamilnadu rep. By its Principal Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2.The District Magistrate-cum- District Collector, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil. ...Respondents WRIT PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent made in D.Dis(Q.3)85250/96 (AA.No.174/96) dated 13.03.1997 in rejecting the appeal and confirming the order of the 2nd respondent made in R.C.1/15815/96 dated 26.08.1996 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant licence to the petitioner to possess a pistol. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ravikumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Arumugam,Spl.G.P. O R D E R The petitioner applied for a licence to possess a pistol with the second respondent. The second respondent by an order dated 26.08.1996 rejected the petitioner's request to have a licence to possess a pistol. In the impugned order, the second respondent had stated that he had heard the petitioner personally and perused the records. He was not satisfied about the applicant's request to have a licence to possess a fire arm. The second respondent also noted that the petitioner was in jail from 09.01.1992 having been detained under the prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. He was released by this Court by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order dated 03.05.1992 in W.P.No.356 of 1992. This court found that since the petitioner's representation against his detention was not considered within a reasonable time, the detention was bad. The learned District Magistrate also found that the antecedents of the applicant was not satisfactory and therefore, he is not inclined to grant any arms licence to possess a pistol. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority constituted under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. The first respondent by an order dated 13.03.1997 concurred with the order passed by the second respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Mr.T.Ravikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a detention under a preventive detention act is not a conviction. Therefore, the petitioner has not suffered any disqualification in terms of Section 9(1)(a)(ii) of the Arms Act in as much as a detention is only preventive and not punitive. The learned counsel may be correct in stating that he has not suffered any statutory disqualification and therefore, the reference to his detention which was finally revoked by the orders of this Court cannot be taken into account by the authorities. But however, the authorities, who are empowered to grant licence have taken into account not only the petitioner's detention but also several other conduct of the petitioner including confiscation of rice and paddy from the petitioner's mill and his lorry transport on several occasions under the Essential Commodities Act read with Rules framed thereunder. Though in some cases, the petitioner had challenged such confiscation, in the impugned order, there is a reference to a confiscation dated 06.05.1991 wherein, the confiscated commodities were credited to the state account and there was no challenge to such a confiscation. In any event, the Arms Act does not classify all the disqualifications that a person can suffer from possessing an arms licence. Though the petitioner has not suffered the disqualification relating to conviction, to have a good antecedent is a pre-requisite for the authority to consider the grant of a licence. 3. In the present case, both the authorities below were not satisfied about the antecedents of the petitioner. In fact in the counter affidavit filed in support of the impugned order dated 08.10.1998, the first respondent has categorically stated that in the present area where the petitioner resides, there are more than 100 licence holders dealing in paddy and none of them are in possession of any arms licence. Further, the petitioner is continuously indulging in violation of Essential Commodities Act and Rules framed thereunder. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. In the present case, the petitioner does not allege any violation of a procedural right. Infact, the District Magistrate had heard him personally and has given a speaking order which was confirmed by the appellate authority. In the absence of any malafides and also corresponding legal right on the part of the petitioner to possess an arms licence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the authorities below. Hence, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. svki To 1.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, State of Tamilnadu, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2.The District Magistrate-cum- District Collector, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil. +1 cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar Advocate, SR.No.56993 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.57019 W.P.No.6564 of 1998 SA(CO) BK(20/10/2008) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/