A.K. Ganguly, C.J.

1. This appeal by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City impugning the judgment and

order dated 03.06.2008 passed by a learned Judge of the writ court came up for hearing before this Court on 13.08.2008. On that date, learned counsel for the appellant was present, but nobody appeared for the respondent. As such, the appeal was taken up for hearing. This Bench heard the matter and found that the order-dated 112. 2007, passed by the appellant, was challenged in the writ petition. By the said order, the appellant refused to grant arms licence to V.P.Kalairajan, the sole respondent inter alia on the ground that there are three criminal cases pending against him in various police stations in the City of Chennai. Against the said order of refusal to grant licence, there is a specific provision for filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Without filing any appeal, the writ petition was entertained and this Bench held when a specific right is created under the statute namely, the right to get an arms licence, and in case of denial of such right, a special remedy under Section 18 has been provided under the statute, that remedy should be exhausted first before filing a writ petition. The Court further held that such rights are given uno flato. Therefore, without exhausting the said remedy, filing of the writ petition is not permissible, and as such, the order passed on the writ petition was set aside and liberty was given to the sole respondent to file an appeal before the appellate authority within 30 days and if such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority was directed to consider the same without insisting on the period of limitation, since the matter was kept pending before this Court. Inter alia with the aforesaid finding, the appeal was disposed of.

2. After the disposal of the appeal, learned counsel for the respondent filed a petition for restoration, being M.P.No.2 of 2008. Thereafter, on the restoration petition being filed, the matter was restored and was heard on merits in the presence of the parties.

3. When the appeal was heard after restoration, the facts in detail, which were not placed or noticed when the order was passed by this Bench on 13.08.2008, came to be noticed and were considered by this Court and that is why this Bench is now taking a different view.

4. From the materials placed on record, it appears that the writ petitioner, the respondent herein is a practising lawyer since 1987 and is an elected M.L.A from T.Nagar constituency in 2006 and he is also the District Secretary of Students Wing of AIADMK, South Madras. It was stated that since the respondent was receiving some threatening and anonymous calls, he had applied for arms licence to possess a revolver. It was his case that a couple of months back his house was attacked by some hooligans in Thanjavur and some of the movable properties were taken away and his aged father was assaulted and his cow was also injured. It has been stated in view of such incident, the Hon’ble Chief Minister gave an assurance on the floor of the assembly that action would be taken against the culprits, but, according to him, no action was yet taken. It is further alleged that the miscreants raided his house with the target on his life. Since the respondent was not there, he was saved. It is, further, stated that the respondent thought that after this happening, his licence would be granted for protection of his life. But to his shock and surprise, his application was rejected without affording him an opportunity of hearing. The case of the respondent is that the said rejection was based only on the ground that there are three criminal cases pending against him. But, however, ultimately an oral hearing was given to him and the respondent went and appeared before the licencing authority. His further case is that the criminal cases relate to political incidents and they are false cases. Accord