An order passed by a licensing authority following a remand by an appellate authority creates a fresh cause of action, rendering any subsequent challenge to that order a valid original appeal rather than a barred second appeal under S.18(7) of the Arms Act, 1959.

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 17.2.2026 in reference no.N.K.No.VN 5(4)/24847/2021 dismissing the petitioner's appeal and confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dated 22.8.2024 in Na.Ka.No.13773/2023/C4 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to issue arms licence to the petitioner.

ORDER

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 17.02.2026 whereby petitioner's appeal filed before the 1st respondent against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 22.08.2024, stood rejected on the premise that petitioner had earlier preferred an appeal in respect of renewal of Arms license.

3. Brief facts:

i) Petitioner is engaged in the business of Prawn culture. With a view to ensure his personal safety and that of his family, petitioner had applied for arms license before the respondents. Same was considered and petitioner was granted license in VDM 02/2011 for revolver under the provision of the Arms Act, 1959, by the 2nd respondent. The said license was periodically renewed in compliance with the relevant rules. While so, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.83/2019 under Sections 3(2)(a), 3(2)(b), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of I.T.P Act by Velankani Police. Thereafter, petitioner applied for renewal of licence in the year 2021, which was rejected by the 2nd respondent. On 30.06.2021, the 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to surrender the revolver, on the premise that there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner.

ii) Aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent rejecting the renewal of license, petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. During the pendency of the said appeal before the 1st respondent, petitioner was acquitted by the Trial Court vide order dated 10.11.2021 after trial in C.C.No.1/2020 by the Additional Mahila Court at Nagapattinam.

iii) Taking into account the subsequent development, the 1st respondent vide order dated 15.11.2023 directed the 2nd respondent herein to reconsider the application after receiving the necessary reports from the Revenue Officers and after conducting proper enquiry within a period of 30 days.

iv) Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent passed an order on 22.08.2024 stating that though the pending criminal case in C.C.No.1 of 2020 ended in acquittal on 10.11.2021, however a discreet enquiry revealed that there was no need to renew petitioner's arms licence as the petitioner does not have any business/ rivalry and there was no threat to petitioner's life.

v) Challenging the above, petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent rejected the appeal on the technical ground that a second appeal would not lie on the same subject as per Section 18(7) of the Arms Act, 1959.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent ought to have seen that the order of the 1st respondent dated 22.08.2024 gives rise to a fresh cause of action and thus it was inappropriate for the 1st respondent to have rejected treating the petitioner's appeal as a second appeal.

5. Learned counsel for respondents would reiterate that the order of the 1st respondent was in fact in accordance with Rule 18(7) of the Arms Act, 1959.

6. Having heard both sides, this Court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner inasmuch as the order dated 22.08.2024 o