The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a renowned shooter to possess additional arms and ammunition as per the Arms Act and Rules.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a notice termed to be the final notice dated 28.12.2022, which directs the petitioner to divulge the minimum qualifying marks of his claim of him, being a Renowned Shooter, and has sought certain consequential benefits by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, to consider the application of the petitioner and grant additional weapons.

2. Heard Sri. Praveen S, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Spoorthy Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The petitioner claims to be a Renowned Shooter and has participated in several shooting events both at the National Level and State Level competitions. He further claims to be a life member of the National Rifle Association of India and he would come within the definition of 'Renowned Shooter' in terms of the Arms Rules, 2016.

4. The petitioner submits an application to the first respondent seeking additional weapons on 21.09.2020. The application does not merit any consideration. After having waited for close to three years, a communication comes about on 28.12.2022 terming it to be a final notice observing that the petitioner has not divulged the minimum qualifying marks to be a renowned shooter and those facts must be within 15 days delivered to the office of the Deputy Commissioner. It is calling that in question the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel for petitioner Sri. Praveen S., would place reliance upon the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and Rules framed there under in the Arms Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Rules' for short) to buttress his submission that petitioner being renowned shooter is entitled to possess 10 Arms. He now possesses three and has applied for four additional Arms. It is his submission that on one pretext or the other the respondents are dodging the issue and have not issued a final notice to know the minimum qualifying marks to become a renowned shooter.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents would vehemently refute the submission to contend that the petitioner can possess only two arms in terms of the schedule appended to the Arms Act and therefore, the request made to add four more arms to his number is untenable and therefore, the petition should be dismissed.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the respective counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The only issue that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the additional Arms that he was seeking in terms of the Act and the Rules. To consider the same, it is necessary to notice certain provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 3 of the Act reads as follows:-

"3. Licence for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition.?(1) No person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder:

Provided that a person may, without himself holding a licence, carry any firearm or ammunition in the presence, or under the written authority, of the holder of the licence for repair or for renewal of the licence or for use by such holder.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), no person, other than a person referred to in sub-section (3), shall acquire, have in his possession or carry, at any time, more than two firearm:

Provided that a person who has in his possession more firearms than three at the commencement of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983 (25 of 1983), may retain with him any three of such firearms and shall deposit, within ninety days from such commencement, the remaining firearms with the officer in charge of the nearest police station or, subject to the condit