Decided on September 09,1970

S.P. Mohammad Appellant
The Commissioner Of Land Revenue, Board Of Revenue (Land Revenue) And Anr. Respondents


Tayi Ramaprasada Rao, J. - (1.) The petitioner who is a citizen of India, applied for the grant of a licence to possess a revolver and made the prescribed statements therefore to the licensing authority, namely, the 2nd respondent, under the provisions of the Arms Act of 1959 and Rules made thereunder. It is not disputed that the application contained the necessary particulars to be furnished under the Act and Rules. The petitioner's requirement of the arm was based on personal reasons and grounds. He is a resident of George Town, Madras. His factory is at Thiruvottiyur village within Chingleput District. There is man force of 200 strong employed in the said factory. The petitioner carries daily a sum of Rs. 2,000 in cash for the purpose of his business. As he was apprehensive of his personal safety and safety of money, he made the necessary application for licence for keeping a fire Arm. The 2nd Respondent, by his order dated 30th June, 1969, made a laconic order to the effect: The application of Thiru S.P. Mohammed of Thiruvottiyur Nagaram, Saidai Taluk, Chingleput District for the grant of new revolver licence (Kai Thupakki) was examined and rejected.
(2.) The petitioner, under the provisions of law, demanded the reasons for refusal to grant a new revolver licence. On 28th August, 1969, the 2nd respondent once again wrote to the petitioner as follows: Petitioner, in accordance with his request in the afore -mentioned reference is informed that his application has been rejected, as the grounds set out by him for possessing a revolver licence are insufficient.
(3.) This order is equally laconic. But, being obliged in law to file an appeal against the order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal under Sec. 18 of the Act to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, for the first time dealt with the subject -matter and considered the entire issue as if it was the original Authority. Ultimately, the Board of Revenue came to the conclusion that the right to hold arms is not an absolute right and there are reasonable grounds for rejection of the application for the grant of a licence. It is against the said order that the present writ petition has been filed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.