Madras High Court
Perumal vs / on 13 November, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.(MD)No.2180 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.(MD)No.2180 of 2023
and W.M.P.(MD)No.1966 of 2023
Perumal ... Petitioner
/Vs./
1. The Additional Principal Secretary/
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Disaster Management and Mitigation Department,
Elizhagam, Chepauk, Chennai -600 005.
2.The District Collector cum District Magistrate,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in
Na.Ka.No.VaNi5(1)/13521/2021, dated 14.12.2022 confirming the
impugned order passed by the second respondent in Pa.Mu.No.
4662/2021/C3, dated 05.03.2021 and quash the same as illegal,
consequently, direct the respondents to grant SBBL Gun license to the
petitioner as per Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Arms Act.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhi Raj
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.2180 of 2023
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by
the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.VaNi5(1)/13521/2021, dated
14.12.2022, thereby confirming the order passed by the second
respondent in Pa.Mu.No.4662/2021/C3, dated 05.03.2021, thereby
refused to grant SBBL Gun license to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner owned agricultural lands in Survey Nos.490/4B,
4B2, 491/2B and 499/1 situated at East Ayakudi Village, Palani Taluk,
Dindigul District. The said land is situated near the hill and there are wild
boar and elephants. In order to safeguard the crops and the petitioner's
land from the wild animals, the petitioner sought for SBBL Gun license
for crops protection before the second respondent. On receipt of the
same, the second respondent, conducted an enquiry and without
considering the report submitted by the Tahsildhar, Palani Taluk, the
Inspector of Police, Ayakudi Police Station and the Forest Ranger,
Chatrapatti, mechanically rejected the application submitted by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner, seeking SBBL gun license.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per
Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Arms Act, 1959, by a citizen of India in respect
of a smooth bore gun license 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 shall have to
be granted. In fact, the Tahsildhar, after conducting enquiry, submitted a
detailed report, and recommended for grant of SBBL gun licence.
Likewise, the Inspector of Police, Ayakudi Police Station, in his report
dated 05.06.2021 recommended for grant of license to the petitioner.
Further, the Forest Ranger, Chatrapatti, also recommended for issuance
of grant of license. However, without considering this, the second
respondent mechanically rejected the application submitted by the
petitioner, seeking SBBL gun license. There is absolutely no reason to
reject the application submitted by the petitioner.
4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reported in 2009-3-MLJ-1295 (Commissioner of Police, Egmore,
Chennai-8 V. V.P.Kalairajan) and the relevant portion of the judgment
reads as follows:
“18. It is nobodys case that the petitioner has
made an application for grant of licence for prohibited
arms or prohibited ammunition. Prohibited arms and
prohibited ammunition are defined under Section
2(h) and 2(i) of the said Act. The petitioners application
is for a licence for a revolver. It is a non-prohibited
arms, and the said licence has been asked by the
petitioner for his personal safety. Prayer for such a
licence can be refused by the Licensing Authority in
accordance with the provisions under Section 14(1)
(b) of the said Act. In Section 14(1)(b) there are sub-
Clauses (i) and (ii). Sub-Clause (i) is further divided
into (1),(2) and (3). Before any application for licence
can be refused by the Licensing Authority under these
categories the Licensing Authority must have reasons to
believe that the applicant falls in any of those categories
of Clauses (1), (2) and (3) of Section 14(1)(b)(i). The
concept of reasons to believe will govern cases of refusal
of licence under Section 14(1)(b)(ii).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19. The expression reasons to believe which is the
governing words in the said statute has been interpreted
by different courts in the context of different statutes.
This expression has already acquired a jurisprudential
connotation.”
5. The learned Special Government Pleader filed the counter
affidavit and submitted that as per Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Arms Act,
1959, the licensing authority after enquiry and after considering the
report received from the authorities concerned, the licensing authority by
order in writing either to grant license or refuse to grant license. Further,
the petitioner had already fenced his entire land with solar wire.
Therefore, there is absolutely no possibility of wild animals to enter into
the petitioner's land and damage the crops. There is a chance for hunting
of boars and deers, which is against the Wild Animals Act. That apart the
petitioner's land is located near 10.5 km away from the Reserve Forest
Department. Therefore, nothing wobble to grant license to the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. It is relevant to extract the provision under Section 13(3) of the
Arms Act:
“(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 protection; or
(ii) in respect of a firearm to be used for target
practice by a member of a rifle club orrifle
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
8. Thus, it is clear that though the licensing authority can refuse to
grant license, if applied for bona fide protection, the licensing authority
shall grant license for 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. It is also relevant to extract Section 14 of the
Arms Act:
“14. Refusal of licences.- (1) Notwithstanding
anything in section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse
to grant-
(a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5
where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited
arms or prohibited ammunition;
(b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,-
(i) where such licence is required by a person whom
the licensing authority has reason to believe—
1. to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for
the time being in force from acquiring, having in his
possession or carrying any arms or ammunition; or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(2) to be of unsound mind; or
(3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under
this Act; or
(ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary
for the security of the public peace or for public safety to
refuse to grant such licence.
(2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant
any licence to any person merely on the ground that such
person does not own or possess sufficient property.
(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a
licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons
for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a
brief statement of the same unless in any case the
licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in
the public interest to furnish such statement.”
9. Admittedly, the petitioner sought for SBBL gun license to
protect his crops. Though the petitioner fenced his entire agricultural
land with solar wire fencing, it will not help the petitioner to protect his
agricultural land, since it causes very minimum to scare the wild animals,
such as, elephants, boars in nature and it would cause serious damage to
the agricultural crops. It will also cause danger in human being also.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Therefore, there is absolutely no reason arise for refusing of licence to
the petitioner as contemplated under Section 14 of the Arms Act.
Further, it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner submitted
application seeking license for prohibited arms and prohibited
ammunition. Admittedly, the petitioner sought for license for non-
prohibited arms and to protect his life as well as his agricultural crops.
10. On perusal of the report submitted by the Tahsildhar, Palani
Taluk, it revealed that the petitioner's agricultural land is located near the
reservation forest and he is cultivating the land. In order to protect his
agricultural crops from the wild animals, viz, boars and elephants, the
petitioner applied for gun license. On verification, the apprehension of
the petitioner is true and there is every possibility by the animals, to
damage the agricultural crops. The petitioner is not involved in any
criminal case and the Tahsildhar, Palani Taluk, recommended for
issuance of SBBL gun license.
11. Likewise, the Inspector of Police, Ayakudi Police Station, also
recommended for issuance of license. Since there are cases that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
elephants killed two human beings. Finally the Forest Ranger,
Chatrapatti, also recommended the case of the petitioner and stated that
the petitioner's land is located 8 Kms away from the reservation forest
from Chatrapatti and 2 ½ Kms away from Ayakudi. There is eminent
possibility of destroying the crops by the wild animals. On enquiry, from
the adjacent land owners also, they had no objection for issuance of
SBBL gun license tot he petitioner. However, without considering the
above report, the respondents rejected the application submitted by the
petitioner.
12. In view of the above, there is absolutely no reason for rejection
of the petitioner's application seeking SBBL gun license. Therefore, the
impugned order passed by first respondent in Na.Ka.No. VaNi5(1)/
13521/2021, dated 14.12.2022, confirming the order passed by the
second respondent in Pa.Mu.No.4662/2021/C3, dated 05.03.2021, is
liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. This Writ Petition stands allowed. The second respondent is
directed to issue SBBL license to the petitioner within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
13.11.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
NCC : Yes / No
LS
TO:-
1. The Additional Principal Secretary/
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Disaster Management and Mitigation Department,
Elizhagam, Chepauk, Chennai -600 005.
2.The District Collector cum District Magistrate,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
LS
Order made in
Dated:
13.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
