MUHAMMED SHAFI A Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for licence for a 22 bore rifle made by Remington (USA) in terms of S.3 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Ext. P1 is the application for arms licence in the prescribed format wherein the need projected by the petitioner is self protection. The District Magistrate who is the licensing authority called for reports from the departments of Police, Forest and Revenue. Ext. P2 is the report of the District Superintendent of Police to the effect that there is no objection in granting a licence to the petitioner from the point of view of security. Ext. P3 is the report of the Divisional Forest Officer to the effect that there is no objection in granting a licence from the point of view of forest and wild life protection. The District Magistrate however by Ext. P4 order rejected the application for licence put in by the petitioner. The said order was challenged in appeal under S.18 of the Act to the Land Revenue Commissioner raising several grounds. Ext. P5 is the order of the appellate authority confirming the order of the licensing authority disallowing the application for licence. The concurrent orders of the authorities have been challenged in this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The two reasons held out against the petitioner for not granting an arms licence are the following:

(3.) S.13 of the Act deals with the grant of licences and the relevant provisions thereof are as follows: