D. MANOHARAJ Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is in possession of three license for possessing arms namely, .32 Revolver Licence No. B1/82/2001, .22 Rifle Licence No. B1/79/2000 and DBBL Licence No. B1/RR.01/2017. He has been issued with the impugned order, dated 06.04.2018 cancelling the arms licence in respect of possessing double barrel gun bearing weapon DBBL No.117617 on the ground that he is already in possession of .22 Rifle and as such the licence for the double barrel gun is not required. 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 petitioner has participated in various shooting competitions and he is also the President of Madurai Rifle Club. In connection with shooting competitions, he requires all the three fire arms for practice as well as for participating in such events.

(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 already in possession of .22 rifle, his possession of double barrel gun is not required. He further submitted that the petitioner has not furnished any evidence to show that he requires double barrel gun for 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.