Madras High Court
V.Ganesan vs The Additional Secretary / on 11 July, 2023
W.P(MD)No.9196 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.9196 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
V.Ganesan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Secretary /
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Disaster Management and Mitigation Department,
Ezhilagam,
Chennai-600 005.
2.The Additional District Magistrate /
District Revenue Officer,
Collectorate,
Tirunelveli-9. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating
to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings R.A.
5(1)/53267/2009 dated 05.08.2013 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent passed
in his proceedings no.D3/62954/2011 dated 10.09.2012 quash the same and direct the
respondents to issue license to the petitioner to hold a SBBL Gun for self protection.
For Petitioner : no appearance
For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj
Special Government Pleader
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9196 of 2014
ORDER
None appears for the petitioner.
2. The case is posted under the caption 'for dismissal'. The
petitioner is a businessman. He applied for gun license on 14.12.2011.
The licensing authority rejected the request vide order dated 10.09.2012.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first
respondent. The appellate authority also confirmed the order of rejection
and negatived the appeal on 05.08.2013. Challenging the same, the
present writ petition came to be filed.
3. I went through the averments set out in the affidavit and
considered the contentions set out in the grounds. The respondents have
filed counter affidavit and the learned Additional Government Pleader
took me through its contents. He submitted that the impugned orders are
speaking orders and that interference is not warranted. He pressed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9196 of 2014
4. I carefully considered the rival contentions. Section 13 of the
Arms Act, 1959 reads as follows:-
“13. Grant of licences.-(1) An application for the grant of a
licence under Chapter II shall be made to the licensing authority and shall
be in such form, contain such particulars and be accompanied by such
fee, if any, as may be prescribed.
[(2) On receipt of an application, the licensing authority shall call
for the report of the officer in charge of the nearest police station on that
application, and such officer shall send his report within the prescribed
time.
(2A) The licensing authority, after such inquiry, if any, as it may
consider necessary, and after considering the report received under sub-
section (2), shall, subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, by order
in writing either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same: Provided
that where the officer in charge of the nearest police station does not send
his report on the application within the prescribed time, the licensing
authority may, if it deems fit, make such order, after the expiry of the
prescribed time, without further waiting for that report.]
(3) The licensing authority shall grant—
(a) a licence under section 3 where the licence is required-
(i) by a citizen of India in respect of a smooth bore gun having a
barrel of not less than twenty inches in length to be used for protection or
sport or in respect of a muzzle loading gun to be used for bona fide crop
protection:
Provided that where having regard to the circumstances of any
case, the licensing authority is satisfied that a muzzle loading gun will
not be sufficient for crop protection, the licensing authority may grant a
licence in respect of any other smooth bore gun as aforesaid for such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9196 of 2014
protection; or
(ii) in respect of a 1 [fire-arm] to be used for target practice by a
member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognised by the
Central Government;
(b) a licence under section 3 in any other case or a licence under
section 4, section 5, section 6, section 10 or section 12, if the licensing
authority is satisfied that the person by whom the licence is required has
a good reason for obtaining the same.”
5. The petitioner had relied on the decision of the Allahabad High
Court reported in AIR 1993 All 291 (Ganesh Chandra Bhatt Vs. The
District Magistrate) wherein it was held that it is one's fundamental right
to seek gun license. The petitioner is not justified in placing reliance on
the said decision as it was overruled in the judgment reported in 1995
SCC Online All 979 (Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttarpradesh). In
USA, citizens have the fundamental right to bear arms. In India, that is
not the case. A discretion to grant gun license is left to the licensing
authority. The licensing authority will take note of the attendant factors.
The primary ground to be considered is whether the applicant is facing
threat. Only based on this threat perception, the authority considers
issuing license for self protection. The petitioner is not having any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9196 of 2014
criminal case registered against him. His record is clean. But that by
itself is not sufficient for grant of gun license. If the contention of the
petitioner is to be accepted, then, every businessman in India will be
entitled to gun license. Since the petitioner has not demonstrated that he
is facing threat, the authority rightly negatived the petitioner's request.
The appellate authority has also not deemed it fit and appropriate to
interfere with the decision of the original authority. I am not satisfied
that the impugned orders suffer from any irregularity or perversity. I am
satisfied that the authorities have taken into account all the relevant
factors. Recently, a learned Judge of this Court vide order dated
08.06.2023 in W.P.(MD)Nos.1293 and 1294 of 2022 held as follows:-
“6.The second ground for which the petitioners seek gun licence
is that they carry huge amount of cash for the various business concern
which they have and also because they are both Class-I contractors.
There are so many Class-I contractors across the State of Tamil Nadu
and if this ground is considered, then every Class-I contractors would
start applying for gun licence and this order would be used as a
precedent for that. The petitioners, as owners of various companies,
would certainly have the personnel necessary to transport cash. At any
rate, transportation/payment of more than Rs.20,000/- is prohibited and
it is only online transfer, which is encouraged in the present days.
Therefore, that reason of carrying huge cash cannot withstand the
scrutiny of this Court. The petitioners can very well arrange for bank
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9196 of 2014
accounts to be opened and transfer cash either through online/internet
transfer or through any other mode.”
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
6. I am of the view that interference is not called for. The Writ
Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
11.07.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
rmi
To
1.The Additional Secretary /
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Disaster Management and Mitigation Department,
Ezhilagam,
Chennai-600 005.
2.The Additional District Magistrate /
District Revenue Officer,
Collectorate,
Tirunelveli-9.
W.P(MD)No.9196 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9196 of 2014
11.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
