B GANESH PRASAD Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's deceased father was a licensee under the Arms Act to possess a SBBL gun since 1956, for nearly thirty years. The petitioner claims that there was a partition in his family and he was allotted properties under the registered Partition Deed. It appears, on the death of his father, a brother of the petitioner, Shri Mahabaleshwara Bhat was possessing the said gun. Since the petitioner required the gun, he applied for a licence supported by a consent letter of his brother, but his brother subsequently withdrew his consent. The District Collector, called for a report, from the Revenue and the Police authorities. The Tahsildar recommended grant of licence in favour of the petitioner. However, the Superintendent of Police reported that there are lot of licensed weapons already and hence he did not recommend the application of the petitioner for licence. The District Collector rejected the petitioner's application. The rejection was confirmed in an appeal filed by the petitioner. The writ petitioner challenges the said two orders.

(2.) The petitioner contends that the impugned orders Exts. P1 and P2, are illegal and arbitrary, and that there is nothing against the petitioner in the Reports submitted by the Tahsildar or the Superintendent of Police. He would contend that his father was having a licence, and that a licence is necessary to protect the crops. He would contend that there is total non-application of mind about the requirements of law. The fact that his father was having a gun since 1.10.1956 was lost sight of. He points out similar circumstances as Exts.P3 to P5 where a different yardstick was followed. It is contended that even if the reason stated in the order is accepted as true, it is no ground to reject the application of the petitioner. It is contended that his right to hold and possess a gun is a fundamental right.

(3.) A perusal of Ext.P1 would show that the Tahsildar, Kasaragod has recommended grant of licence in favour of the petitioner. It is also noteworthy that the order notes that the petitioner has applied by transfer from his elder brother as per application dated 12.7.1996. As already stated, his elder brother has withdrawn his consent. Petitioner admittedly has made an application afresh on 11.3.1997. It has to be noted that Ext.Pl order would show that the parties were heard on 12.3.1997. So, the application made on 11.3.1997 was apparently before the authority. But, there is no reference to the said application, it is clear that the only ground for rejecting the application by the District Collector is that there is a Report by the Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod that there are a lot of licensed weapons in the area and the misuse of the arms cannot be ruled out. It is also stated that the elder brother has withdrawn the consent to sell the weapon to the petitioner as per letter dated 12.2.1997. However, ultimately, the order is passed on the ground only stating that "since the Superintendent of Police has not recommended the issue of licence, the application of Shri.B.Ganesh Prasad, is hereby rejected". A perusal of Ext.P2 appellate order shows that the Appellate Authority has referred to certain rulings of this Court and other High Courts. The Appellate Authority has thereafter found that the District Collector has taken a decision after considering of all relevant aspects. A perusal of Exts.P3 to P5 would show that Ext.P3 relates to a case where the superintendent of Police had recommended issue of a licence and still, the Additional District Magistrate, Kasaragod rejected the application on the ground that the applicant was residing in an area where there were frequent clashes on political ground. No doubt, the Board of Revenue has set aside the said order, finding that the father of the applicant therein had a valid licence. Nothing adverse has been brought out against the son and there was no reason to reject the application. Ext.P4 relates to a case of transfer from father to son. The Superintendent of Police had objected. The Board of Revenue interfered stating that the Superintendent of Police has not substantiated his statement and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal. Ext.P5 is again an appellate order in a case where the father of the applicant held a licence and the appellate body found that need existed. The police report was favourable to the applicant, But, the rejection was ' only on the ground of preservation of wild life. It was found that there was no material to presume that the applicant will misuse his weapon and the appeal was allowed on that basis.