Destruction of deposited weapons without statutory notice and procedural compliance under Arms Act and Rules is illegal and arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

P.M. MANOJ, J.

This Writ Petition is preferred being aggrieved by the illegal, unauthorized, and high-handed acts allegedly committed by Respondents 5 to 9. The petitioner seeks the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1 lakh, together with permissible interest and damages for the losses sustained.

2. The petitioner, a senior citizen and a retired Joint RTO, was the holder of a valid arms license and the owner of a 0.32 caliber German-made Ceco revolver, acquired during the initial stage of his service. In 1993, pursuant to a letter issued by the Home Department (Ref: No. 5760/1993/Home dated 30.09.1993) and the orders of the then District Magistrate, Thrissur (Order No. CS/66725/1993 dated 25.10.1993), the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Thrissur West Police Station, directed the petitioner to surrender his revolver.

3. In compliance with the said order, the petitioner surrendered the revolver to the officer on 25.10.1993. The firearm was subsequently transferred to the Police Armoury/Unit Armoury for maintenance and safekeeping, as evidenced by the Seizure Mahazar marked as Exhibit P1.

4. It is further contended that, due to exigencies and inconveniences related to his employment in the Motor Vehicles Department, the petitioner was unable to renew his arms license promptly. Subsequently, in 2008, he applied for a fresh arms license before the District Magistrate, Ernakulam. Despite favourable reports from the Police, his application remained pending. Although a report was sought from the District Magistrate, Thrissur, and forwarded to the 6^th respondent (as evidenced by Ext.P2), the application was not considered until 2019.

5. Aggrieved by this delay, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court via WP(C) No. 25573 of 2018. The matter was disposed of by judgment dated 12.12.2018, wherein this Court found that the reasons assigned for withholding the license were unsustainable. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the 6threspondent to act in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Act. Pursuant to this direction, the 6threspondent issued an Arms License to the petitioner vide proceedings No. M3/70176/2016 dated 08.04.2019 (Ext.P4).

6. Upon obtaining the license, the petitioner approached the 8^th respondent via communication dated 26.06.2019, requesting the return of the 0.32 German-made Ceco Revolver surrendered in 1993. In response, the 8^th respondent, along with a letter from the 7^th respondent dated 25.06.2019, informed the petitioner that his revolver had been destroyed on 27.10.2011. This destruction was purportedly carried out under the orders of the 5^th respondent, citing MHA letter No. H4-76004/97 dated 27.10.2011.

7. In such circumstances, it is contended that the 5^th respondent acted without any authority under the Arms Act by destroying the revolver surrendered in 1993, without adhering to the mandatory procedures contemplated under Rule 47 of the Arms Rules, 2016. Specifically, the petitioner highlights the proviso to (7), which mandates that the District Magistrate shall, before passing an order of forfeiture, serve a notice under Section 21(4) of the Act, in a manner consistent with the service of summons under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. No such notice was ever served upon the petitioner.

8. Furthermore, there was a failure to comply with Rule 47(3), which requires the issuance of a formal receipt to the depositor and the transmission of a copy to the licensing authority, containing the particulars of the weapon and the depositor’s details. In the absence of such pr