Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. DHANAPALAN
K. Ramasamy
Versus
The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Disaster Manager and
Mitigation Department & Another
W.P.No.2366 of 2011
Decided on : 10-07-2012
Revolver Licence - Refusal to Grant - Arms Act, 1959, Sections 13 and 14 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, which govern the grant and refusal of licences. The court emphasized the necessity for threat perception to life and property and the pressing need for keeping a weapon for effective protection as prerequisites for granting a licence. The court also highlighted the requirement for the licensing authority to record reasons for refusal and communicate the same to the applicant.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ to quash the order refusing to grant him a revolver licence for self-protection. The authorities rejected his application based on reports from revenue and police officials, stating that there was no pressing necessity for keeping a weapon for effective protection and no proof of threat perception to life and property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the refusal to grant the revolver licence was valid as the petitioner did not face any threat to his life or property and there was no pressing necessity for keeping a weapon for effective protection. The court also noted that the appellate authority had analyzed the original authority's order before confirming it.
Issues: The main issue was whether the refusal to grant the revolver licence was valid under the Arms Act, 1959.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the refusal to grant the revolver licence was valid as there was no proof of threat perception to life and property and no pressing necessity for keeping a weapon for effective protection. The court also emphasized the necessity for the licensing authority to record reasons for refusal and communicate the same to the applicant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no need to interfere with the orders of the authorities below.
1. Seeking to quash the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings in R.A.5 (2)/33407/2007-AA No.81/07 confirming the order dated 02.04.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Mu.Mu.C4/8742/2005 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to re-consider his request for grant of licence to have Revolver, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
2. Facts of the case as put forth in the affidavit would run thus:
2.1. The petitioner, who is residing at Thirunagar Colony, Sankari, Salem District, owns lands worth about 10 lakhs and is also having a house situated in a remote area of his Village. He is also doing business in the name and style of 'C.K.R. Finance' from the year 2000 and is also running a Textile shop in the name and style of 'Dinesh Garments' at Sankari. He is actively cultivating sugarcane and turmeric crops in his land measuring an extent of 5 ½ acres situated at Poochapatti, Sankari Taluk and in order to carry on business activities and agricultural operation, he always used to carry liquid cash with him. He is living with his wife and children and one of his sons is physically challenged and his wife used to accompany him. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application dated 24.04.2004 to the 2nd respondent to grant Revolver licence to him for self protection.
2.2. The said application dated 24.04.2004 has been processed and reports have been called for from the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Sankari and the Superintendent of Police, Salem. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before them and explained the necessity to get the Revolver Licence for self protection. But, the RDO, Sankari, in his Report dated 17.01.2005 and the Superintendent of Police, Salem, in his proceedings dated 17.01.2005 did not recommend for grant of licence.
2.3. The 2nd respondent did not appreciate the grievance of the petitioner properly and refused to grant licence vide his order dated 02.04.2007 made in Mu.Mu.C.4/8742/2005 on the ground that the RDO Sankari and the Superintendent of Police, Salem has not recommended for grant of licence. Aggrieved by the said order dated 02.04.2007, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent on 04.05.2007 on various grounds. The said appeal was taken on file in A.A.No.81 of 2007 on the file of the 1st respondent and the matter was argued at length on 02.11.2009. The said appeal was also dismissed on the ground that the Superintendent of Police, Salem did not recommend the grant of licence.
2.4. As both the respondents did not consider the imminent possibility of danger to his life, the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the 1st respondent confirming the order dated 02.04.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent, has approached this court by way of the present writ petition, seeking to quash the same and to re-consider his request for grant of Revolver Licence.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit and has stated as follows:
(i) The petitioner, residing at No.1/17/10/2-Thiruchengode Road, Thirunagar Colony, Sankari, Salem District applied for a revolver gun licence for self-protection to the Collector, Salem on 20.04.2004. The Collector, Salem has called for a report from the Tahsildar, Sankari; Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankari and the Superintendent of Police, Salem. The Tahsildar, Sankari, in his Report in K.Dis/3420/2004/J dated 19.11.2004 has rejected his request, as there are so many facilities available nowadays viz., Credit Card, ATM, Demand Drafts, Transfer of Money, etc. from one account to another. The RDO, Sankari, in his report in L.Dis.No.4605/2004 dated 17.01.2005 has re-directed the Tahsildar Report and rejected the petitioner's request for issuance of Gun Licence (Revolver). The Superintendent of Police, Salem, in his report in ROC G1/20591/2004 dated 17.01.2005, has stated that there are so many persons similar to the petitioner doing various
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
