Disposed

P.Ravikumar, v. the Principal Secretary/

Madras HC17 Mar 2022WP/18251/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal to grant a gun license for self-protection. The court upheld the rejection noting the petitioner failed to provide convincing materials justifying the need for an additional weapon while already holding a rifle license.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed ofwith observations that the rejection was based on sound reasons and the petitioner could apply again with required proofs.

P.Ravikumar, Vs the Principal Secretary/ — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

W.P.No.18251 of 2011

¶6

P.Ravikumar ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Principal Secretary/

¶9

Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Disaster Management and Mitigation Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai - 600 005.

¶10

The Additional District Magistrate/

¶11

District Revenue Officer,

¶12

Salem District, Salem. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in Moo.Mu.2789/2008/C4, dated 06.06.2008 in conforming the same by the first respondent in his proceedings RA.5(2)/58795/2008/A.A.No.74/2008, dated 24.11.2010 to quash and consequently, direct the second respondent to grant licence of 0.22 riffle to the petitioner forthwith.

¶14

For Petitioner :M/s.N.Anand

¶15

For Respondents :M/s.M.Rajendiran Additional Government Pleader

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in Moo.Mu.2789/2008/C4 dated 06.06.2008 in conforming the same by the first respondent in his proceedings RA.5(2)/58795/2008/A.A.No.74/2008, dated 24.11.2010 to quash and consequently, direct the second respondent to grant licence of 0.22 riffle to the petitioner forthwith.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

The petitioner applied for a Gun licence on the ground of self protection. He is an owner of Petrol Bunk and running a Sago factory. In the course of his business, he has to carry huge some of money during late night hours. Therefore, to protect himself from culprits, he sought for issuance of Revolver licence from the second respondent.

¶20

As per law, it should be recommended by the Superintendent of Police of the District. In the instant case, the Superintendent of Police has refused to recommend for issuance of weapon to the petitioner on the ground that he is a short tempered man and that he is already holding Rifle licence (DBBL licence No.158/2002). Therefore, the recommendation was issued only for holding 22 inch Rifle and refused to give Gun licence to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent, wherein the first respondent considered the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police as well as the Tahsildhar, Salem, and found that the petitioner is already in possession of a Gun for self protection and an additional weapon need not be given.

¶21

A perusal of the order passed by the second respondent as well as the first respondent, it is noted that the petitioner even though claims himself doing the Sago business and owns lot of properties, has not produced any convincing or acceptable materials for consideration of the second respondent to justify his requirements.

¶22

In such circumstances, the rejection of the request of the petitioner by the respondents is based on sound reasons and does not warrant any interference. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner still requires licence under the Arms Act, it is open to him to submit it along with all the required proofs to the authorities and apply for the same in accordance with law.

¶23

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

SD/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶25

// TRUE COPY //

¶26

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

asi To

¶29

The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Disaster Management and Mitigation Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai - 600 005.

¶30

The Additional District Magistrate/ District Revenue Officer, Salem District, Salem.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.C.Prabakaran, Advocate Sr.18444

¶32

W.P.No.18251 of 2011

¶33

spd[co] srg 04/04/2022

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Ravikumar, v. the Principal Secretary/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ravikumar, v. the Principal Secretary/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tiruchengode Nagara Kavarai Vs the Divisional Engineer

The Pondicherry Dentists Vs the Government of Pondicherry

M/S. Amarjothi Spinning Mills Vs Tamilnadu Electricity

S.Janakiraman, Vs the Assistant Director of Khad

P.M.Leen Abdulla Vs the Regionalofficer

G.Keerthivasan Vs Deputy General Manager (B and O)