Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 16807
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Mr.Justice V.Lakshminarayanan, J
NiyazAhammed – Appellant
Versus
The Additional Chief Secreta – Respondent
W.P.(MD).No.3514 of 2025
Mr.D.Venkatesh for Petitioner, Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader for Respondents
The court affirmed that under Section 13(3) of the Arms Act, a gun license must be granted for crop protection when justified, despite the absence of a fundamental right to bear arms.
Headnote:(A) Arms Act, 1959 - Section 13(3)(a)(i) - Writ Petition to quash the order rejecting the grant of SBBL gun license for crop protection - The petitioner, a landowner, sought a gun license after wild animals damaged his crops, supported by local authorities but opposed by the Superintendent of Police - The court found that the licensing authority's reliance on fire crackers for crop protection was insufficient and that the petitioner had not faced any adverse police notice - The court emphasized the statutory obligation to grant a license for crop protection under Section 13(3) of the Arms Act. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12)
(B) Fundamental Right - The court acknowledged that there is no fundamental right to bear firearms but noted the specific provisions allowing for licenses in cases of crop protection. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner owns 4 acres and 20 cents of land, settled in his favor in 2006, and sought a gun license after elephants damaged his crops, with compensation previously sanctioned.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the licensing authority's rejection was unjustified and directed the issuance of a gun license for crop protection.
Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of fire crackers for crop protection and the statutory requirements for granting a gun license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the licensing authority must grant a license for crop protection when justified, and the reliance on fire crackers was inadequate given the circumstances.
Result: Writ Petition succeeds.
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent by the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.Va.Ni.5(1)/10751/2024 dated 12.12.2024, confirming the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent by proceedings in Ma.Pa.No.435/2022/C3 dated 04.03.2024 and consequently, direct the respondents to grant SBBL gun license to the petitioner as per Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Arms Act.
2. The petitioner is the owner of the property to an extent of 4 Acres and 20 cents in Vadakavunji Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District. This property was settled in favour of the petitioner by his grandmother on 04.01.2006. On the strength of this settlement, the petitioner has also mutated the revenue records in his name.
3. The petitioner pleads that on 02.02.2021, elephants entered his property and damaged the crops. On account of the damage, he made a request to the Government to compensate him and a sum of Rs.38,000/- was also sanctioned as compensation for the damage of 280 banana plants.
4. In order to avoid any such incidents in future, the petitioner applied for a SBBL gun licence. He made an application to that effect on 11.06.2022. The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Dindigul District called upon the petitioner to appear before him. He also did so on 08.09.2023. The petitioner pleaded that he is raising crops like banana, coffee, lemon and avocado and as the property is situated near the Kodaikanal hill area, wild animals like boar and elephants are frequently causing damage to the plants. The second respondent, by his impugned proceedings, rejected the permission for grant of licence. This rejection was, despite the fact that the District Forest Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer, had supported the application and it had been opposed only by the Superintendent of Police.
5. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent. Pending the appeal, the wild animals yet again entered the petitioner's property and damaged the crops. By the impugned order dated 12.12.2024, the first respondent rejected the appeal. Hence, the Writ Petition.
6. Mr.D.Venkatesh argues that there is an imminent need for a fire arm in order to prevent wild animals from causing damage to the petitioner's property. He further states that bursting of fire crackers, as suggested by the first and second respondents, is not helping the petitioner in preventing such ingress by wild animals.
7. Mr.A.Kannan, learned Additional Government Pleader points out that there is no fundamental right to bear firearms and if the plea of the petitioner is accepted, all the farmers in the area will start asking a SBBL gun. This would result in hunting of wild animals, which would lead to deleterious consequences. He states that the conventional method of bursting fire crackers to deal with wild animals is sufficient and therefore, the order rejecting the plea of the petitioner requires to be upheld. He would also refer to Section 14(1)(ii) of the Arms Act of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') to urge that the Superintendent of Police had refused to recommend the case of the petitioner, since if a fire arm is issued, it will lead to security risk, breach of public peace and public safety.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I have gone through the records.
9. I agree with Mr.A.Kannan that there is no fundamental right to bear firearms. However, the District Magistrate has been empowered to grant license in certain cases. One such case is where a person requires a gun license for crop protection. The difference between Section 13(2A) and Section 13(3) of the Act is essentially to be noted here. Under Section 13(2A), on receipt of an application for grant of license, the licensing authority “may” after considering the report from the officers under Section 13(2) can grant licence. In contradistinction, Section 13(3) states where a licence is sought by a citizen of India for a smooth
