PAKRAN Vs. COLLECTOR OF MALABAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the petition (as amended) is for a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. A, P5 and P7. Ext. A dated 8. 3. 1954 reads as follows: "under R. 41 (a) of the indian Arms R. 1951, the Renewal of the following licences is refused. THEir validity expired on 31. 12. 1953". THE second licence mentioned in the order, No. 584/ C/ (XIX), is the licence issued to the petitioner. Ext. A was apparently not communicated to the petitioner and he has been able to obtain a copy thereof only after the filing of this Writ Petition before the high Court of Madras.

(2.) EXT. P5, an order of the Collector of Malabar dated 14. 8. 1955 is in the following terms : "enquiries made previously revealed that it was not safe to entrust him with a weapon considering his temperament and hence his applications were rejected. There are no grounds for reconsidering the matter now". EXT. A is the only "rejection" on record and so the statement that the petitioner's "applications were rejected" is incorrect.

(3.) R. 41 of the Indian Arms Rules, 1951, deals with the discretion and control of the authorities empowered to grant licences: " (1) Every authority empowered to grant or renew a licence or to give his previous sanction to such grant or renewal may, in his discretion,(a) refuse to grant or renew such licence or to give such sanction, or (b) where the authority is subordinate to the Government of a Part A State or Part C State, refer the application for orders to such Government : Provided that in any case in which such authority refuses to grant or renew a licence, the applicant for such grant or renewal may appeal to the immediate official superior of the authority so refusing. In the State of Madras, the Board of Revenue and in the state of Assam, the State Government shall be considered to be the immediate official superior of the District Magistrates for the purpose of such appeals. (2) Every such authority shall exercise all powers and perform all duties conferred or imposed by these rules, subject to the control of the executive authorities to whom he is subordinate". I need hardly point out that the discretion granted is a judicial discretion and any arbitrary or capricious exercise of such a discretion will vitiate the entire proceedings. (See 1953 (1) MLJ 418 and 1957 (1) MLJ Short Notes p. 5 ).