The court affirmed that renowned shooters under 21 can obtain Arms Licences per exemptive provisions, with adherence to mandatory licensing regulations.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

1. The petitioner, who is aged 16 years, is a shooter registered with the National Rifle Association of India. The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P6 and to command the 1^st respondent-District Collector to forthwith reconsider Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner for Arms Licence.

2. The petitioner has participated in the 66^th National Shooting Championship competitions (Pistol Events) held at Bhopal in the year 2023. The petitioner secured high score and was certified as 'Renowned Shooter'. The petitioner wanted to participate in point 22 Pistol matches at the State and National levels. The petitioner therefore applied for an Arms Licence under Section 3 of the ARMS ACT , 1959.

3. The petitioner states that the Central Government has issued Ext.P5 Notification dated 12.02.2020 exempting the class of persons specified therein from the operation of Section 9 (1)(a)(i). The petitioner being a certified Renowned Shooter, she stands exempted from the provisions of Section 9 (1)(a)(i). However, to the predicament of the petitioner, the 1^st respondent-District Collector issued Ext.P6 order dated 03.05.2024 rejecting Ext.P3 application for Arms Licence submitted by the petitioner.

4. According to the 1^st respondent, Section 9 (2)of the ARMS ACT only enables a person who has attained the prescribed age limit, i.e., below the age of 21 years but not below the age of 12 years to use firearms under prescribed conditions in the course of training. It does not entitle such person to acquire, possess or carry firearms. The petitioner is not therefore entitled to Arms Licence.

5. The petitioner states that the 1^st respondent has lost sight of the fact that in the light of Ext.P5 Notification issued under Section 41 of the ARMS ACT , 1959, the petitioner being a Renowned Shooter, stands exempted from the provisions of Section 9 of the ARMS ACT and Rule 36 of the ARMS RULES . The petitioner would further submit that by Ext.P7 judgment, a learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has quashed an order of the Licensing Authority rejecting the application for Arms Licence submitted by the petitioner therein on the ground that he has not completed the age of 21 years. Ext.P6 order of the 1^st respondent is therefore clearly illegal and unsustainable, contends the petitioner.

6. The 1^st respondent-District Collector contested the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 1^st respondent submitted that the petitioner is 16 years old and is a minor. The petitioner has to undergo firearms and ammunition training as per the ARMS RULES before an Accredited Trainer having licence to impart training as per Rule 39. At present, Government has not given accreditation to any trainer other than the Deputy Commandant of the Police Battalion. The petitioner has not produced S1 Firearms and Ammunition Safety Training Certificate as mandated in Rule 10 of the ARMS RULES , 2016. The petitioner has only produced a certificate from an Accredited Shooter having licence under Rule 39. The writ petition is therefore without any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the 1^st respondent and the learned Senior Panel Counsel representing the 2^nd respondent.

8. The petitioner is a shooter registered with the National Rifle Association of India (NRAI). The petitioner had taken part in the 66^th National Shooting Championship Competitions (Pistol Events) held at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh in the year 2023. The petitioner participated in the said championship as a competitor of the Kerala State