Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 2891
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
S. Subramaniam
Versus
The Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue, Board of Revenue, Chennai & Another
W.P. (MD). No. 11346 of 2013
Decided on : 02-09-2014
For the Petitioner:M. Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondents: M. Rajarajan, G.A.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for compliance with the legal provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, particularly Section 34, which imposes restrictions on granting new licenses under the Arms Act within a radius of ten kilometers of a sanctuary without the prior concurrence of the Chief Wild Life Warden.
Headnote:
Arms License - Wildlife Protection - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, particularly Section 34, which imposes restrictions on granting new licenses under the Arms Act within a radius of ten kilometers of a sanctuary without the prior concurrence of the Chief Wild Life Warden. The court emphasized the need for compliance with the legal provisions and the requirement of prior concurrence of the Chief Wild Life Warden for granting new licenses near sanctuaries.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an advocate and landlord, applied for an arms license for a SBBL gun inherited from his father. The application was rejected due to the proximity of the petitioner's lands to forest land, requiring a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Wild Life Warden under Section 34(3) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's application without considering the specific circumstances and without conducting a proper inquiry was illegal and unreasonable. The court emphasized the need for compliance with the legal provisions and directed the second respondent to reconsider the application, affording the petitioner a personal hearing and complying with the observations made by the court regarding the applicability of Section 34(3) of the Act.
Issues: The issues included the rejection of the arms license application based on the proximity of the petitioner's lands to forest land, the requirement of a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Wild Life Warden, and the failure of the Licensing Authority to consider the specific circumstances and conduct a proper inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the misapplication of the legal provisions by the Licensing Authority, the failure to conduct a proper inquiry, and the need for compliance with the requirements of Section 34(3) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration, with directions to afford the petitioner a personal hearing and to comply with the court's observations regarding the applicability of Section 34(3) of the Act. The second respondent was directed to take a decision within four weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order.
1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the first respondent, dated 27.05.2013, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner as against the order passed by the second respondent, dated 08.03.2013, by which, the petitioner's request for arms license for his SBBL gun German make, was rejected.
2. The petitioner's father Thiru. Sastha inherited two weapons from his father, namely, SBBL gun and a revolver. The petitioner's father was possessing license for both the weapons. Due to old age, the petitioner's father gifted the revolver to the petitioner's elder brother Thiru S.Nagamony and SBBL gun to the petitioner. This was to be preserved by them as memento, as it was the priced possession of the family. Since the petitioner is an Advocate by profession and also landlord and he has owning lands in Karungulam village, and Kalakkadu village in Tirunelveli District, apart from the lands in Kanyakumari District. The petitioner's brother S.Nagamony was granted license by the second respondent for the revolver. When the petitioner applied for the license, the second respondent, by order dated 08.03.2013, rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner's lands were situated within the radius of eight kilometres from the forest land and therefore, the petitioner has to obtain 'No Objection Certificate' from the Wild Life Warden as required under Section 34(3) of the Wile Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Challenging the said order, he preferred an appeal to the first respondent. After setting out the factual details, the petitioner raised several legal grounds also stating that the estate land available in the name of the petitioner is nor near any notified wild life line and the order of rejection of the Licensing Authority on the ground of not obtained the No Objection Certificate from the Wild Life Warden without any basis.
3. Further it was stated that the weapon was not involved in any criminal activity and it is seen with the family for over fifty years and apart from use for self protection and proper cattle protection. The weapon is a memorabilia of the petitioner's family. Further it is submitted that the Licensing Authority, namely, the second respondent without conducting any enquiry merely proceeded to accept the report of the Forest Department and rejected the petitioner's application, which is illegal and unreasonable. On the above grounds, the petitioner sought for setting aside the order passed by the Licensing Authority.
4. The Licensing Authority, by critic order, dated 27.05.2013, virtually rejected the appeal petition in a single line order stating that the petitioner should comply with the direction issued by the District Collector. It is unfortunate that the First Appellate Authority did not independently examine the appeal petition. The petitioner had raised grounds to state that the Licensing Authority was not justified in insisting upon a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Forest Department. However, without considering any of the points, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's application. Challenging the same, the writ petition has been filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings passed by the second respondent is on a thorough misconception of a legal position. By referring to Section 34(3) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, it is submitted that no new license under Arms Act 1959 shall be granted within a radius of ten kilometres of a sanctuary without the prior concurrence of the Chief Wild Life Warden. Sanctuary has been defined under Section 2(26) of the Act to mean an area declared as a sanctuary by notification under the provisions of chapter IV of the Act and shall also include a deemed sanctuary under Section 66(4) of the Act.
6. Chapter IV of the Act deals with protected areas and Sections 18 to 38 of the Act contained in Chapter IV. Section 18(1) of the Act speaks about the manner in which an area to be d
