In a significant decision touching on citizens’ rights under the Arms Act, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside an order by the Dindigul District Collector that had denied renewal of a gun licence to one Magudapathi. The court observed that a mere pending criminal case under Section 304A (causing death by negligence) could not justify such refusal.
Background
The petitioner, Magudapathi, had been granted a gun licence in 2021, which was renewed once without objection. However, when he sought another renewal, the District Collector rejected his application, citing a pending criminal case. The Revenue Divisional Officer had actually recommended the renewal, but the Collector overruled it.
The government’s counsel argued that since a criminal case was pending, renewal could pose a threat to public safety, and that the petitioner should have exhausted his appeal remedy before approaching the High Court.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Orders Restoration of Fair Price Shop Licence, Says FIR Under Essential
Court’s Observations
Justice G.R. Swaminathan, who presided over the case, offered an elaborate explanation on the distinction between the grant and renewal of licences under the Arms Act, 1959. He noted that while obtaining a licence is a privilege, its renewal carries a legitimate expectation of continuity unless there are compelling legal grounds to deny it.
“The burden shifts to the authority when renewal is sought,” the judge explained, adding that the licensing officer must show valid reasons under Section 14 of the Act to reject renewal.
He observed that denying renewal is a serious matter since it can “cast a slur on a person’s reputation” and must therefore be backed by real and relevant reasons. Referring to legal commentary by De Smith and judgments of other High Courts, Justice Swaminathan said that renewal should normally follow unless the authority can prove the applicant is unfit or poses a genuine public threat.
Importantly, the bench clarified that involvement in a criminal case does not automatically mean the person is a danger to public safety. “In this case, the petitioner faces prosecution for a road accident. By no stretch of imagination can this endanger public safety,” the judge remarked.
The court also dismissed the State’s argument that the petitioner should have gone to the appellate authority first, calling it a matter of “policy and convenience,” not a strict legal bar.
Read also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court Vacates Zion Shipping’s Interim Attachment Order in $2.9 Lakh Rice
Decision
Concluding that the Collector’s order was unsustainable, Justice Swaminathan quashed the impugned order and directed the District Collector to renew the petitioner’s arms licence, subject to appropriate conditions.
With this, the court reaffirmed that a pending negligence case cannot be a blanket reason to deny a citizen the renewal of an existing firearm licence.
Case Title: Magudapathi vs. District Collector, Dindigul & Others
Case No.: W.P.(MD) No. 23614 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 06 October 2025
