SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Ker) 90

V.CHITAMBARESH
Muhummad Shafi. A – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:K.V. Reshmi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: K.T. Lilly, Government Pleader.

Judgment

1. The petitioner applied for licence for a .22 bore rifle made by Remington (USA) in terms of Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). Ext.P1 is the application for arms licence in the prescribed format wherein the need projected by the petitioner is self protection. The District Magistrate who is the licensing authority called for reports from the departments of Police, Forest and Revenue. Ext.P2 is the report of the District Superintendent of Police to the effect that there is no objection in granting a licence to the petitioner from the point of view of security. Ext.P3 is the report of the Divisional Forest Officer to the effect that there is no objection in granting a licence from the point of view of forest and wild life protection. The District Magistrate however by Ext.P4 order rejected the application for licence put in by the petitioner. The said order was challenged in appeal under Section 18 of the Act to the Land Revenue Commissioner raising several grounds. Ext.P5 is the order of the appellate authority confirming the order of the licensing authority disallowing the application for licence. The concurrent orders of the
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top