A. RAVI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's request for renewal of licence of two of his arms namely, .22 Rifle and single barrel breach loaded gun had been rejected through impugned order dated 06.04.2018, on the ground that he is already in possession of .32 Revolver and that he is not a dedicated sports person. 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 is a life member of the Madurai Rifle Club and is in possession of .22 Rifle, Single Barrel Breach Loaded Gun and .32 Revolver, for which he has valid licence. The reasoning of the respondent that the possession of .32 Revolver will serve the purpose and that the petitioner is not a dedicated sports person, is baseless.

(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 .32 revolver, the possession of other two arms is not required. He further submitted that the petitioner has 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 .22 Rifle and the single barrel breach loaded 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.