M CHETTIANNAN Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order declining the grant of Arms Licence to the Petitioner and also to direct the Respondents to grant Arms Licence to the Petitioner to possess SBBL Gun.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts - The Petitioner had applied to the Additional District Magistrate cum District Revenue Officer, Namakkal for grant of Arms Licence to possess a SBBL Gun for self protection. On the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal, the first Respondent rejected the application of the Writ Petitioner by the proceedings K.Dis.10827/98 M3, dated 16.07.1998. The Writ Petitioner preferred an appeal to the second Respondent under Section 18(1) of the Arms Act. In his proceedings in D.Dis.RA.V[2] 66336/98 [A.A.No.1645/98], dated 01.03.1999, the second Respondent passed the order setting aside the orders of the first Respondent on the ground that the order of the first Respondent dated 16.07.1998 is a non speaking order. The matter was remanded back to the first Respondent for fresh disposal after giving opportunity of being heard.

(3.) ON behalf of the Petitioner, it was contended that the Respondents have failed to consider Section 13 of the Arms Act which recognizes the right of Citizen of India to licence and it is not open to the Licensing Authority to refuse licence arbitrarily. To hold a fire-arm and consequently to obtain licence therefor is not a fundamental right. Till the Forty-fourth amendment in the Constitution in 1978, Clause [f] of Article 19(1) of the Constitution recognized, as a fundamental right, on its basis the right to acquire and hold a fire-arm was held to be a fundamental right by various High Courts [1953 Cr.L.J. 917 {P.Narasimha Reddy Vs. District Magistrate, Cuddapah} 1968 All.L.J.1029 {State of U.P. Vs. Jaswant Singh Sarna}]. This clause was omitted by the Constitution [Forty-fourth Amendment] Act, 1978 with effect from 20th June, 1979. The right to hold a fire-arm and the grant of a licence therefor can now no longer be claimed as a fundamental right. A Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the decision made in AIR 1956 Allahabad 291 [Kailash Nath Vs. State of U.P.] has held that a licence for acquisition and possession of fire-arm is merely a personal privilege for doing something which without such privilege would be unlawful and the obtaining of a licence for acquisition and possession of fire-arms under the Arms Act is, therefore, nothing more than a privilege and it is not a fundamental right. This right cannot even remotely be comprehended within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution which postulates the fundamental right of protection of life and personal liberty. This view was again reiterated by another Full Bench in 1989 A.L.J. 23 [Balram Singh Vs. State of U.P.].