Dismissed

N.Radhakrishnan v. the District Collector

Madras HC7 Jul 2022WP(MD)/9833/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal of arms license re-registration. The court held that the S.P.'s internal report cannot be questioned but directed the District Collector to determine the application on its own merits after a fresh report.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Petitioner directed to file fresh application; District Collector directed to consider application afresh after fresh report.

N.Radhakrishnan Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.9833 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.07.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.9833 of 2015 and

¶7

M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 od 2015

¶8

N.Radhakrishnan ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The District Collector, Theni District, Theni.

¶11

The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni.

¶12

The Inspector of Police, Uthamapalayam Police Station, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.46962/C1/G2Y-1142 dated 03.01.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct

¶14

1/6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.9833 of 2015

¶17

the first respondent to re-register the Fire Arm License granted to the petitioner in No.1430/DM/PUL dated 04.04.2013 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.Karthik for M/S.Ajmal Associates

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the report sent by the Superintendent of Police to the District Collector, under which, he has refused to recommend re-registration of Arms Licence to the writ petitioner.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the

¶23

criminal cases that are reflected in the impugned order are of the year 1992 and he has already been acquitted. Hence, the said facts cannot be put against him. However, the learned counsel for the respondents had contended that the petitioner was involved in a subsequent case, in which, he was convicted and he has paid the fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees

¶24

2/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.9833 of 2015

¶27

Thousand only).

¶28

The District Collector is the competent authority to re-register or grant Arms Licence to the writ petitioner. He had only called for a report from the Superintendent of Police. This report is an internal communication sent by the Superintendent of Police to the District Collector. It is for the District Collector to take an appropriate call either to accept the recommendation or to take an independent decision on his own. Hence, the report of the Superintendent of Police cannot be questioned before this Court. However, the first respondent herein is at liberty to consider the application of the writ petitioner on its own merit and in accordance with law.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of old application being pursued, he would like to file a fresh application. In such an event, the District Collector will call for a fresh report from the Superintendent of Police.

¶30

3/6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.9833 of 2015

¶33

The writ petitioner is directed to file a fresh application before

¶34

the District Collector. After receiving a fresh report from the Superintendent of Police, the first respondent shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the writ petitioner

¶35

With the above said observations, this Writ Petition is disposed

¶36

of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶37

07.07.2022

¶38

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶39

jbr

¶40

¶41

The District Collector, Theni District, Theni.

¶42

The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni.

¶43

4/6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.9833 of 2015

¶46

The Inspector of Police, Uthamapalayam Police Station, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

¶47

5/6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.9833 of 2015

¶50

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.

¶51

jbr

¶52

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.9833 of 2015

¶53

07.07.2022

¶54

6/6

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

N.Radhakrishnan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Radhakrishnan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamilvel Uma Maheswaranar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Mlwa Higher Secondary School Vs the District Collector

Cicily Koshy, Vs the District Collector

H.S. Mohaideen Vs Paramakudi Municipality

R.Kamaraj Vs the Secretary,Govt of India

M.Saravanan Vs the Secretary,Govt of India