THIRUNAVUKARASU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. V. Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has submitted that he is a cashier in Soundarya Garments at Tiruppur. As such, the petitioner is entrusted with the responsibility of collecting money from the customers living in various villages in Coimbatore District. Every day the petitioner was collecting huge amounts and at times, the collection had exceeded Rs. 1 lakh. Therefore, the petitioner had applied for an SBBL Gun licence for self protection. The Tahsildar, Kangeyam Taluk, Erode District, after making necessary inspection, had recommended the request of the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, Erode, had also recommended for the grant of Gun licence to the petitioner for self protection. However, the Additional District Magistrate cum District Revenue Officer, Erode, in his order K. Dis/114484/97, dated 12. 7. 98, had rejected the application of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Principal Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Madras, namely, the second respondent herein, on 30. 7. 98. On hearing the appeal, the second respondent had passed an order in D. Dis. RA. V. (2)64308/98 (A. A. 160/98), dated 30. 6. 99, rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raising various grounds as stated therein.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had denied the claims made on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel had submitted that it is not made clear as to whether the petitioner is still in need of the Gun licence, as it is not known whether the petitioner is still functioning as a cashier as claimed by him. He had also submitted that the Gun licence, as requested by the petitioner, is not granted as a matter of right. The rejection of the request of the petitioner by the respondents 1 and 2 are based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with law.