ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 22.11.2013 passed by the appellate authority confirming the order of original authority viz., District Revenue Officer refusing to grant SBBL license for self protection to the petitioner and quash the same.

2. The contention of petitioner is that he is an agriculturist and residing with his family in the interior village viz., Panipillakaadu, Sindampalayam, Tiruchengode Taluk. He would also submit that as his house is situated nearby forest and for protection of their life and property as well as crops from animals, he applied for SBBL license. The recommending authority viz., Tahsildar as well as Superintendent of police had given a report recommending for issuance of license in favour of petitioner. However, the District Revenue Officer rejected the license only on the ground that since the report submitted by Tahsildar and Superintendent of Police does not indicate any specific threat to the life of petitioner. Thereafter, the appeal filed before the Commissioner of Revenue Administration also confirmed the order of District Revenue Officer. Now, challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, they took a stand that the report of Superintendent of Police and Tahsildar did not indicate a specific threat to the life of petitioner. Further, it is his submission that only dry crop of maize in 1.06.5 hectares and commercial crop of Tapioca in 0.90.0 hectares were cultivated, from which income will not be so huge. Therefore, the grant of license to his brother and the antecedent of his father do not in any way help the Writ Petitioner as a reason for application for the possession of gun. Hence, he opposed to allow this Writ Petition.

4. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for Writ Petitioner that the Tahsildar and Superintendent of Police recommended for issuance of SBBL gun licence and the same was rejected by the original as well as appellate authority. For the sake of dismissal, the order has been passed without giving any valid reason as required under law. In such view of the matter, the order passed by the appellate authority dated 22.11.2013 is liable to be set aside and the respondent is liable to be directed to issue a license. However, the learned Government Advocate submitted that as the report of Tahsildar and Superintendent of Police did not contain any particulars as to the specific threat to the life of petitioner, license has been rightly rejected by the authorities. Hence, he opposed this Writ Petition.

5. On perusal of entire materials, it is pertinent to note that in the report filed by the Tahsildar and Superintendent of Police, it was clearly mentioned that there is no bad antecedents against the petitioner and in fact, it is pointed out that there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner and the fact that his house situated in an isolated place. Both the Tahsilar and Superintendent of Police have recommended for issuance of SBBL Gun license. Furthermore, the original authority rejected the application mainly on the ground that there was no particulars mentioned as to the specific threat to the life or any threat to theft to the petitioner. Therefore, this court is of the view that to possess valid license, threat cannot be an actual threat, mere anticipation of threat itself is sufficient. Similarly, there should not have been actual theft, should have committed on any property. Therefore, a person, who has a reasonable apprehension to his life or property, it certainly entitles to apply for license.

6. It is to be noted that as per Sec.13 of Arms Act, an application is to be made to the Licensing Authority in a form contain such particulars and on receipt of an application, the licensing authority shall call for the report of the officer incharge of the nearest police station on that application and such officer shall send his report within