BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY K.Kamalesh ...Petitioner vs.

1. The Additional Chief Secretary/

The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai - 5.

2. The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Dindigul District.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

4. The District Forest Officer, Dindigul District.

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. 6. The Tahsildar, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.

...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.VaNi 5(1)/20839/2025 dated 11.07.2025 and in pursuance to the order passed by the 2nd respondent by his proceedings in Pa.Mu.No. 1771149/2024/C3 dated 04.06.2025 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent to grant a Small-Bore Breech Loading (SBBL) gun license to the petitioner based on the petitioner application dated 09.09.2021 and 04.07.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Mahendran For Respondents : Mrs.S.Jeyapriya, Government Advocate for R1, R2, R4 to R6 Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

for R3

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.VaNi 5(1)/20839/2025, dated 11.07.2025 and the second respondent in Pa.Mu.No.1771149/2024/C3, dated 04.06.2025, and to direct the first respondent to grant a Small-Bore Breech Loading (SBBL) gun license to the petitioner based on the petitioner's applications dated 09.09.2021 and 04.07.2025.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, initially, the petitioner's request for gun licence was rejected by the second respondent on 22.06.2023. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the first respondent and the first respondent, remanded the matter to the second respondent for re-consideration. Once again, on 04.06.2025, the second respondent rejected the request of the petitioner. The said rejection order was also challenged by the petitioner before the first respondent and the first respondent also, on 11.07.2025, confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. According to the learned counsel, there were elephant attacks in the petitioner's neighbourhood and hence there is a life threat to the petitioner and his neighbours. The photographs and the news releases in this regard were also produced before the respondents 1 and 2. However, none of the above aspects were considered by the respondents 1 and 2. In support of his contentions, he also relied upon the Judgment of this Court dated 13.11.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.2180 of 2023 and prayed for allowing this Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that, till date, no untoward incident happened in the petitioner's neighbourhood. Therefore, the petitioner's application for gun licence was rejected.

4. I have given due consideration to the submissions made on either sides.

5. Upon perusal of records, particularly, the photographs adduced in page nos.79 to 88 of the typed set of papers enclosed along with the affidavit, shows that there were many news releases with regard to elephant attacks in the agricultural field in and around the petitioner's property. Such being the case, it is not known as to how the respondents 1 and 2 have arrived at a conclusion that there was no untoward incident in and around the petitioner's neighbourhood. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the first respondent for re-

consideration.

6. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the first respondent dated

11.07.2025 and second respondent dated 04.06.2025 are set aside and this matter is remanded to the first respondent for re-considerat