V.CHITAMBARESH
Muhummad Shafi. A – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.