Dismissing the petitions filed by two brothers who sought the direction to the authorities to grant gun licence, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court observed that there is no duty cast on the authorities to grant gun licence merely because somebody applied for it. The nature and conduct of the person must be analysed, the court said.
The court was hearing the petitions filed by brothers M. Raja and M. Kannan. Their father S. Muthiah had served as Dindigul Superintendent of police. They sought a direction to the authorities to grant gun licence. They approached the court as the authorities rejected their applications. The petitioners said that they required a gun for their protection. They said that they carried huge amounts of cash as they were involved in business and to protect themselves from wild animals.
The authorities submitted that by misusing the address of their father, both the petitioners were able to obtain gun licence in 2000. Subsequently, it was cancelled by the Dindigul Collector in 2002. The appeals preferred by the petitioners before the authorities were also rejected.
Justice C.V. Karthikeyan observed that the petitioners had stated that they sought gun licence to protect themselves from the wild animals. This would also inversely mean that the petitioners seek licence to shoot down wild animals. The animals are treasures of the forest and the petitioners cannot claim any privilege or right to wander around the forest and thereafter, seek permission to issue gun licence for protection from wild animals. They need not enter the forest. They may stay at their house. They may stay away from the habitation of wild animals.
The second reason for which the petitioners seek gun licence is that they carry huge amounts of cash for various business concerns which they have and also because they are both Class-I contractors. There are so many Class-I contractors across the State and if this ground is considered, then every Class-I contractor would start applying for gun licence and this order would be used as a precedent for that. The petitioners can very well arrange for bank accounts to be opened and transfer cash either through online/internet transfer or through any other mode, the court observed.
The court observed that the original licences were obtained by giving a false address using the address of their father, who was the then Superintendent of Police. Several cases were registered against them. Though the cases ended in acquittal, it only showed that the petitioners have an affinity to get involved in acts of crime and offence. This cannot be encouraged and to such persons if a gun licence was granted, then it would only lead to more chaos and confusion. The security of common innocent people would be at risk, leave alone the animals in the forest.
“I am not impressed with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of these petitions. Gun licence cannot be sought as a matter of right”, the court observed and dismissed the petitions.
