The judgment established that mere involvement in political cases should not be a sole ground for denying a revolver licence, emphasizing the need for the Licensing Authority to consider the genuine need for the licence and adhere to principles of natural justice.

By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 112. 2007 passed by the respondent and direct the respondent to grant revolver licence to the petitioner and award costs and damages.

.3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a practising advocate since 1987 and he was elected as MLA from T.Nagar Constituency in the year 2006 and he is also the District Secretary of Students Wing of AIADMK, South Madras. According to the petitioner, as he is a member of the Legislative Assembly belonging to the opposition party, he has got apprehension of his life and he is receiving anonymous calls and for his personal protection, he applied for arms licence to possess a revolver. Petitioner states that his house in his native place at Thanjavur was destroyed recently by hooligans and his aged father, who was at home, was also assaulted and a cow was also stabbed, apart from damages to the movables in the house. Petitioners application for the grant of revolver licence was rejected by the impugned order stating that he is involved in three criminal cases in Chennai City and therefore as per the report of the Field Officer and the Local Police, there is compelling reasons to deny licence. The said order is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the respondent, who is a quasi judicial authority, has not applied his mind independently and solely relied on the report of the Field Officer and Local Police and the impugned order is without any other reason to deny the revolver licence and the petitioner is entitled to get the same under section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959, and the licence can be refused only on certain contingencies specified under section 14 of the Act.

.4. The respondent filed counter affidavit by stating that the petitioner applied for Arms Licence on 11. 2006 for his protection, for safety of his personal belongings and official documents. The application was referred to D3-Ice House Police Station, Chennai. The Local Police not recommended for the issue of Fire Arms Licence on the ground that the petitioner is involved in three criminal cases and the address of the petitioner is temporary. A show cause notice dated 7. 2007 was issued asking the petitioner as to why his application shall not be rejected as he is involved in criminal cases and 15 days time was given to submit his explanation. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in spite of giving time, petitioner has not submitted any explanation within the stipulated time and consequently the impugned order dated 18. 2007 was passed. Insofar as the incident said to have taken place at Thanjavur, petitioners home town, respondent states that he is not aware of the same as it is not within his purview. Petitioner requested for personal hearing through his advocate on 28. 2007 and accordingly he was informed to appear personally on 210. 2007 at 15.30 hours and he was given audience as Member of the Legislative Assembly and not for re-opening his case. In the counter it is further stated that the following three cases are pending against the petitioner: Citing the above said three cases, petitioner was denied of the revolver licence.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that all the three cases against the petitioner cited above, relate to his political activities and participation in the agitations, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly belonging to the main opposition party and in no case charge sheet is filed even though the date of occurrence is stated as 110. 2006, 20.5.2007 and 6. 2007 respectively and therefore the said political cases registered against the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny Fire Arms Licence to possess a revolver, which the petitioner requires for his personal safety.

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on the basis of the averments contained in the counter affidavit stated that only