Madras High Court
M.Chandramohan vs Tamil Nadu Home Department Rep. By on 27 January, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.25478 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
W.P.(MD) No.25478 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.23068 of 2018
M.Chandramohan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Home Department rep. by
Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
St. George Fort, Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents
PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
documents pertaining to impugned order passed by the first respondent in
G.O.(D) No.1272, dated 01.11.2018 by confirming the order passed by the
second respondent vide Mu.Mu.E3/51213/2013, dated 30.07.2014 and may
quash the same as illegal and may consequently direct the respondents to
renew petitioner's DBBL Gun (Double Barrel Bridge Load) license No.
67/207/SVG/07 within a time period.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Jeyakumar
Additional Government Pleader
***
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.25478 of 2018
ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that he has obtained a licence for
holding a DBBL (Double Barrel Bridge Load) from the competent authority.
His licence bearing No.67/207/SVG/07. However, in 2013 when the
petitioner attempted to renew the licence for the DBBL (Double Barrel
Bridge Load), the same was rejected by the second respondent Collector on
30.07.2014 on the ground that the Superintendent of Police had given an
opinion against the renewal of licence for the reason that the petitioner and
others involved in Criminal Case in S.C.No.127/2013 for various offences
under Sections 148, 341, 307 of IPC, Section 3 r/w. 25 (1)(b)(a) of the Arms
Act and 149 r/w. 307 r/w. 120(B) of IPC and also offences under SC/ST Act.
2.On the basis of the Superintendent of Police's report, the second
respondent refused to renew the licence, as possession of the licence by the
petitioner would seriously endanger the public peace and order. As against
that, the petitioner submitted an appeal to the Government. The
Government by its order dated 01.11.2018 in G.O.(D) No.1272, Home
(Pol.XIII) Department, rejected the appeal on the ground that the second
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.25478 of 2018
respondent had passed a well considered order on the face of the report of
the Superintendent of Police concerned. Challenging the appeal order dated
01.11.2018, the petitioner is before this Court.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner has been having licence ever since it was issued to him in
2013. The petitioner, apart from his agricultural activity, is also carrying on
some business. Due to his professional hazard, the petitioner has applied
for the licence and obtained the same. However, citing some extraneous
reason presently the authorities have refused to renew the licence.
According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the criminal case
initiated against the petitioner has ended in acquittal vide judgment dated
25.01.2016 and therefore, the same cannot be cited as legal impediment for
renewing his licence.
4.After notice, Mr.M.Jeyakumar, learned Additional Government
Pleader, entered appearance for the respondents and submitted that the fact
that the petitioner was involved in various offences attracting sections of
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.25478 of 2018
IPC including 307 etc., would disentitle the petitioner from having the
DBBL (Double Barrel Bridge Load) licence renewed. The Superintendent
of Police has correctly given a report stating that the renewal of the licence
in favour of the petitioner would be against the public order and would also
be endangering the society's peace and harmony. Therefore, the rejection of
request for renewal of his licence is perfectly in order and the same does not
call for interference of this Court.
5.Considered the submissions of the learned Counsels on either
side and perused the materials placed on record.
6.As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents that when the petitioner has involved
in serious offences attracting the provisions of IPC, he became disentitled
for having DBBL (Double Barrel Bridge Load) licence renewed in his
favour. Apart from that, nothing has been stated in the affidavit as to how
the impugned orders are liable to be interfered on legal grounds. The
affidavit is completely bereft of any legal grounds and it does not contain
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.25478 of 2018
any worthwhile material pleadings or grounds in order to upset the
impugned proceedings of the appellate authority. In fact, the appellate
authority has considered the issue in detail and in the face of the clear report
of the Superintendent of Police, not recommending for renewal of licence,
the authorities cannot act against such report and favour the petitioner with
a renewal order. When there are materials to show that possession of the
DBBL (Double Barrel Bridge Load) by the petitioner would cause
disharmony and would also result in endangering public peace and order, it
is right on the part of the respondents to reject the request of the petitioner
for renewal of the licence and this Court does not find any infirmity in the
order passed either by the original authority namely the second respondent
or by the appellate authority viz., the first respondent.
7.Therefore, the Writ Petition is without any merits and hence,
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
Index : Yes/No 27.01.2021
Internet : Yes/No
SRM
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.25478 of 2018
V.PARTHIBAN, J.
srm
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
St. George Fort, Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District.
W.P.(MD)No.25478 of 2018
27.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
