Madras High Court
K.R.Andu Gowder vs The Principle Secretary / on 23 November, 2023
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.A.No.3220 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.11.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.3220 of 2023
K.R.Andu Gowder .. Appellant
Vs.
1. The Principle Secretary /
Commissioner of Revenue (Administration)
Disaster Management and Mitigation
Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005.
2. The District Collector
Collector Office
Commissioner Office Road
The Nilgiris – 643 001.
3. K.R.Arjunan .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order in W.P.No.42285 of 2016 dated 03.03.2023.
For the Appellant : Mr.N.Kathiresan
for Ms.A.Loba Mudra
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
assisted by Mr.T.K.Saravanan
Government Advocate
for R1 and R2
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3220 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard Mr.N.Kathiresan, learned counsel appearing for
Ms.A.Loba Mudra, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader, assisted by
Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1
and 2.
2. The present appellant has filed a writ petition before the
learned Single Judge, challenging the order passed by the first
respondent, rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant to cancel the
gun licence issued to the third respondent herein. The learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present
appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that
the third respondent has claimed the licence of the gun on the basis
of the forged and fabricated Will, allegedly executed by the blood
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
brother of the appellant. The appellant and the third respondent are
half-brothers. The probate proceedings are still pending. Probate has
not been issued in favour of the third respondent. In view of that,
the authority could not have granted gun licence to the third
respondent relying upon the Will.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the suit
between the appellant and his blood brother for partition and
separate possession, after the death of the blood brother, the third
respondent applied to be impleaded on the basis of the Will. The
said application was rejected. The civil revision petition filed against
the said order was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court under order dated 25.07.2005 in C.R.P.(NPD)No.546 of 2003.
In view of that, no licence could have been issued in favour of the
third respondent, relying upon the forged and fabricated Will. The
learned Single Judge did not consider the said aspect.
5. The appellant and the third respondent are half-brothers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
One K.R.Raju, the blood brother of the appellant died on
24.03.2002. The third respondent made an application for gun
licence and the same was granted on 19.11.2003. The reason for
gun licence was stated as “self-protection”. The appellant filed an
application before the second respondent for canceling the gun
licence on the ground that the same is on the basis of the
unregistered Will and the probate is not yet obtained.
6. Learned Single Judge considered the fact that the gun is in
the possession of the third respondent and the parameters for the
grant of licence are completely different from ownership of the
asset. The third respondent was issued with the gun licence for self-
protection. With regard to the validity of the Will, proceedings are
pending between the parties. The learned Single Judge observed
that “while the veracity or otherwise of the Will would have a
bearing on the bequeaths thereunder, the impugned order relates to
the grant of arms licence”. Unless the grounds/conditions for grant
of armed licence are violated, an order for revoking the licence may
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not be passed.
7. In the light of the above, we do not find any error in the
order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ
appeal stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
23.11.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
drm
To
1. The Principle Secretary /
Commissioner of Revenue (Administration)
Disaster Management and Mitigation
Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005.
2. The District Collector
Collector Office
Commissioner Office Road
The Nilgiris – 643 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
(drm)
23.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
