The court held that the rejection of an arms license application must be based on the grounds specified in Section 14 of the Arms Act, and the licensing authority cannot reject the application on untenable grounds.

The petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash Exts.P1 and P3 and to direct the 2nd respondent to issue an order transferring the Arms licence of the 2nd petitioner, to the 1st petitioner as per Rule 25 of the Arms Rules , 2016.

2.The petitioners state that the 1st petitioner is carrying out agricultural operations. The 2nd petitioner is a senior citizen of 75 years of age and is the father in law of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd petitioner is an Arms licensee. Licence was issued to the 2nd petitioner for the purpose of crop protection.

3.The 1st petitioner also applied for Arms licence for protecting crops. The 1st petitioner states that the Arms licence in the name of the 2nd petitioner can be transferred to the 1st petitioner as per Rule 25 of the Arms Rules . The 1st petitioner submitted application to the Licensing Authority for issuance of a fresh Arms licence. The application was rejected by the Licensing Authority as per Ext.P1. The 1st petitioner preferred a statutory appeal against the rejection. The 1st respondent-Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration, as per Ext.P2 order.

4.The 1st respondent heard the 1st petitioner through Video Conferencing on 03.11.2020. However, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P3 order on 18.02.2022 rejecting the 1st petitioner's application for Arms licence again. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P3.

5.The counsel for the petitioners argued that refusal of Arms licence can be made only in vitiating circumstances laid down in Section 14 of the Arms Act . There is no reason whatsoever as contemplated in , to reject the application for Arms licence submitted by the 1st petitioner. The agricultural land of the 1st petitioner is under constant attack and destruction from wild animals. When the competent statutory authorities have submitted satisfactory reports in favour of grant of licence to the 1st petitioner, the 2nd respondent ought not have rejected the 1st petitioner's application again.

6.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

7.The 1st petitioner is an agriculturalist carrying out operations in more than 4 Acres of land in Vellarikund Taluk of Kasaragod District. The 1st petitioner submitted application for issuance of Arms licence. The District Police Chief has submitted a report in favour of grant of Arms licence to the 1st petitioner holding that the 1st petitioner has satisfactory conduct and that he is capable of handling weapons. The Tahsildar also has stated that the 1st petitioner's agricultural land faces attack from wild animals. The Tahsildar also stated that the 1st petitioner has satisfactory conduct.

8.The 1st petitioner's application for Arms licence was once rejected as per Ext.P1 order dated 20.08.2016 by the 2nd respondent. When the 1st petitioner filed appeal, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P2 order directing the 2nd respondent to obtain further reports in this regard and reconsider the application for Arms licence submitted by the 1st petitioner.

9.Ext.P3 is the order passed by the 2nd respondent afresh. The 2nd respondent noted that the 1st petitioner is not involved in wildlife cases. However, the 2nd respondent held that with regard to wild animals destroying agricultural, the Government is providing compensation for crop loss. The 2nd respondent further held that Arms are misused during ritual times like Vayanattukulavan and Arms are being handed over to other people for hunting wild animals. Holding that there is a chance of misuse of weapon and that there is no genuine need for weapon to the 1st petitioner, the 2nd respondent has again rejected the application.

10.The fact that the 1st petitioner is an agriculturalist and that there is a threat to the agriculture from the presence of wild animals like Wild Boar and Porcupine, is not disputed. The 1st petitioner's competency to hold weapon is not in disp