T. UDAYASANKAR Vs. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in D.Dis.RA 5(1)/7327/2003 AA.No. 029/2003, dated 13.10.2003 and quash the same, in and by which the petitioner's appeal was rejected and the appeal was filed against the orders of the third respondent in Na.Ka.C3/91355/2001, dated 31.12.2002, rejecting the petitioner's application for renewal of the arms licence bearing No. 58/11/TKD beyond 31.12.2001 for possession and use of a pistol.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he is a licensee holding the arms licence for possession and use of pistol, which was valid upto 31.12.2001. The petitioner requested his Manager to deposit the gun/pistol by the authorisation letter on account of the Panchayat Elections. After the Elections, the Manager got the licence back from the Police Station where it was deposited. According to the petitioner, the Manager kept the gun/pistol in the side box of the motor cycle and he was entering into the State Bank of India for his personal work, and immediately on his return, the Manager found that the side box of the motor cycle was opened and the pistol was stolen. A complaint has been lodged on 03.11.2011 before the South Crime Police Station. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for renewal of the licence to the authority concerned on 16.11.2001 and requested permission to purchase a new weapon. The third respondent-District Magistrate and District Collector, Tuticorin, after hearing the petitioner, by order dated 31.12.2002, rejected the request of the licensee, namely the petitioner and revoked the licence under Sec. 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act. On appeal by the petitioner, the original authority's order (District Collector and District Magistrate) was confirmed by the appellate authority, namely the second respondent.

(3.) According to the petitioner, due care has been taken for depositing and receiving the pistol from the Police after deposit. Unfortunately, it was stolen for no fault of the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondents that there is no reason or much less the genuine reason for the petitioner to hold the pistol or that there is no necessity for him to get the licence. The appellate authority confirmed the order of the original authority, i.e. the third respondent and rejected the appeal by holding that the petitioner has violated Sections 3(1) and 29(b) of the Arms Act by giving the weapon to his Manager and that the weapon has been delivered to a person who does not possess a valid licence. In terms of the condition based on which the licence has been granted, if the weapon is stolen or lost due to the negligence of the borrower, the licence thereafter is liable to the revoked. Though the weapon has not been borrowed by the Manager, since it has been lost on account of his gross negligence, the appellate authority (second respondent) has confirmed the order of rejection passed by the third respondent.