S.James Swathiban v. The Additional Chief Secretary
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.12.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)No.15161 of 2025 S.James Swathiban
...Petitioner
vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Commissionerate of Revenue Administration and Disaster Management, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the impugned order passed by the first respondent in proceedings in Proc.No.R.A. 5(1)/3050/2023, dated 11.04.2025 by confirming the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.C2/49273/2020, dated 18.08.2022 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to renew the Licence No.2/1/TMM for the D.B.M.L Gun within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.
1/7
W.P.(MD)No.15162 of 2025 S.David Parry
...Petitioner
vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Commissionerate of Revenue Administration and Disaster Management, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Proc.No.R.A.5(1)/3049/2023, dated 11.04.2025 by confirming the order passed by the second respondent in Moo.Mu.No.C2/779/2022, dated 08.08.2022 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue S.B.B.L Gun License within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.
W.P.(MD)No.15163 of 2025 L.Yoshuva Ajai Raj
...Petitioner
vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Commissionerate of Revenue Administration and Disaster Management, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2/7
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the impugned order passed by the first respondent in proceedings in Proc.No.R.A. 5(1)/E-3030895/2022, dated 11.04.2025 by confirming the order passed by the second respondent in Moo.Mu.No.C2/38904/2018, dated 02.08.2022 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue Gun Licence within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. In all cases, For Petitioner : Mrs.K.Banumathi for Mrs.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya For Respondents : Mrs.K.Malathi, Additional Government Pleader COMMON ORDER The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.15161 of 2025 has been filed challenging the impugned orders passed by the respondents rejecting the renewal of gun licence. The Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD)Nos.15162 & 15163 of 2025 have been filed challenging the impugned orders passed by the respondents rejecting the petitioners' plea for grant of new gun licence. 3/7
2. The petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.15161 to 15163 of 2025 are referred to as the first, second and third petitioners respectively.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner applied for renewal of gun licence, in order to protect the crop and cattle from the animals which would enter into his farm. The second petitioner applied for grant of gun licence, as he is doing agriculture works and his house is situated far from the Village. The third petitioner applied for grant of gun licence, as his house is situated within the coir factory and there is threat to his life. According to the counsel, there is life threat to all the three petitioners. However, their plea for renewal / grant of licence was rejected by the respondents. Hence, these Writ Petitions.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that both the second respondent / District Collector, Madurai and the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District came to the conclusion that there is no life threat to the petitioners. Hence, the impugned orders came to be passed.
4/7
5. I have given due consideration to the submissions made on either sides.
6. In the present case, the plea of the petitioners for renewal / grant of licence was rejected both by the second respondent / District Collector, Madurai and the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District citing the reason that there is no life threat to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, gun licence is required to safeguard themselves and their crops and cattle. However, upon hearing either sides, this Court finds that there are other farmers who are living safely adjacent to the petitioners' places. Such being the case, if the petitioners are claiming gun licence to prevent pigs, bears and other animals from entering into their places, this Court is unable to accept the same. If they want to prevent such animals from entering into their places, they can very well put up fencing around their areas.
By holding gun licence, the petitioners cannot prevent all the animals from entering into their places. However, if fencing is made, not only the crops and cattle would be protected, but the petitioners can also freely move around their places. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the right course of remedy available to the petitioners is to put up fencing around their respective places and keep it safe.
issuance of gun licence to the petitioners. Hence, these Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. 15.12.2025 (2/2) Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No mbi To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Commissionerate of Revenue Administration and Disaster Management, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
6/7
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
mbi 15.12.2025 (2/2) 7/7