K.A. CHIDAMBARAM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is life member of the Madurai Rifle Club, is in possession of licence for double barrel gun in Licence No. G1/10/1991. The petitioner had applied for renewal of licence, the present impugned order came to be passed rejecting his renewal application on the ground that he had not participated in the sports event for the last ten years. Challenging the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there are no rules and regulations stipulating that a person should not possess three arms licence. He also submitted that as per section 3(2) of Arms Act 1959, the petitioner is entitled to possess three fire arms and as such, the respondent is not empowered to cancel the same. He further submitted that the only criteria for renewal of arms licence as per the section 13 and 14 of the Arms Act and that the reasoning for the respondent he had not participated any sports event for the last ten years is not a ground contemplated under the Act. As such the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent by relying upon the statements in the impugned order as well as in the counter affidavit submitted that since the petitioner is not participated in any sport event, for the last ten years, he is not entitled for renewal of the arms licence for the double barrel gun. He further submitted that the petitioner is not furnished any evidence to show that he requires two arms in his practice or structural learning process. He would further submit that even if the petitioner is aggrieved against the impugned order, the double barrel gun would be placed in the safe custody of the authorised arms institution and it is always open to him to seek for such custody by approaching the respondent for the purpose of such competition.