P STEPHEN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner applied for a licence to possess a pistol with the second respondent. The second respondent by an order dated 26. 08. 1996 rejected the petitioner's request to have a licence to possess a pistol. In the impugned order, the second respondent had stated that he had heard the petitioner personally and perused the records. He was not satisfied about the applicant's request to have a licence to possess a fire arm. The second respondent also noted that the petitioner was in jail from 09. 01. 1992 having been detained under the prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. He was released by this Court by order dated 03. 05. 1992 in W. P. No. 356 of 1992. This court found that since the petitioner's representation against his detention was not considered within a reasonable time, the detention was bad. The learned District Magistrate also found that the antecedents of the applicant was not satisfactory and therefore, he is not inclined to grant any arms licence to possess a pistol. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority constituted under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. The first respondent by an order dated 13. 03. 1997 concurred with the order passed by the second respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) MR. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a detention under a preventive detention act is not a conviction. Therefore, the petitioner has not suffered any disqualification in terms of Section 9 (1) (a) (ii) of the Arms Act in as much as a detention is only preventive and not punitive. The learned counsel may be correct in stating that he has not suffered any statutory disqualification and therefore, the reference to his detention which was finally revoked by the orders of this Court cannot be taken into account by the authorities. But however, the authorities, who are empowered to grant licence have taken into account not only the petitioner's detention but also several other conduct of the petitioner including confiscation of rice and paddy from the petitioner's mill and his lorry transport on several occasions under the Essential Commodities Act read with Rules framed there under. Though in some cases, the petitioner had challenged such confiscation, in the impugned order, there is a reference to a confiscation dated 06. 05. 1991 wherein, the confiscated commodities were credited to the state account and there was no challenge to such a confiscation. In any event, the Arms Act does not classify all the disqualifications that a person can suffer from possessing an arms licence. Though the petitioner has not suffered the disqualification relating to conviction, to have a good antecedent is a pre-requisite for the authority to consider the grant of a licence.

(3.) IN the present case, both the authorities below were not satisfied about the antecedents of the petitioner. In fact in the counter affidavit filed in support of the impugned order dated 08. 10. 1998, the first respondent has categorically stated that in the present area where the petitioner resides, there are more than 100 licence holders dealing in paddy and none of them are in possession of any arms licence. Further, the petitioner is continuously indulging in violation of Essential Commodities Act and Rules framed there under.