D.Manoharaj v. The Commercial Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.07.2018 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.(MD)No.10305 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)No.9322 of 2018 D.Manoharaj : Petitioner Vs.
The Commissioner of Police, Cum Additional District Magistrate, Madurai City, Madurai.
: Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to clauses 4 to 6 of the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings in C.No.671/60957/VI/2017, dated 06.04.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to renew the licence in respect of arms licence No.B1/RR.01/2017 bearing weapon DBBL No.117617.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Patturajan For Respondent : Mr.V.Anand, Government Advocate
ORDER
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.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions on either side. 5.Section 3(2) empowers a person for possessing and carrying three fire arms. As such, the possession of the three fire arms by the petitioner is not against the statute. The respondent cancelled the double barrel gun licence only on the ground that the petitioner is already in possession of two fire arms. 6.The said reasoning is not in conformity with the provisions of the Arms Act and the rules framed therein. Even assuming that the petitioner does not require double barrel gun, there is no enabling provision for the respondent to cancel the licence on the ground that possession of .22 Rifle is sufficient for the sport and that the Double Barrel Gun in addition to the .22 Rifle is not required. Hence, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondent in cancelling the licence of the petitioner in respect of double barrel gun. As such, the impugned order itself is illegal.
7.In the light of the observation, the impugned order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Police & Additional District Magistrate, Madurai City is hereby quashed and the licence insofar as the double barrel gun bearing weapon DBBL No.117617 is restored. Consequently, the respondent is directed to renew the petitioner's licence within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
To The Commissioner of Police, Cum Additional District Magistrate, Madurai City, Madurai.
+1cc to Mr.M.Patturajan, Advocate Sr.No.74494 GNS VB/RP/SAR4/31.07.2018/3P/3C W.P.(MD)No.10305 of 2018 23.07.2018