Karnataka High Court asks Kodagu DC to consider shooter’s plea for more guns, ammo

The application had been kept pending for three years instead of seven days as specified by law, he stated in the plea.
High court of Karnataka.
High court of Karnataka.(Photo | Nagaraja Gadekal, EPS)

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court directed the Kodagu deputy commissioner to consider the application filed by K Sajan Aiyappa, a well-known shooter, seeking grant for four more arms and 25,000 ammunition to practice his sport. It also ordered the DC to pass appropriate orders as per law.

Aiyappa (54), a resident of Kolkeri village in Napoklu, had filed the plea at the high court against the act of the DC, who kept his application dated September 21, 2020. The application had been kept pending for three years instead of seven days as specified by law, he stated in the plea.

On December 28, 2022, the DC issued a notice to Aiyappa, stating that he has not divulged the minimum qualifying marks to be a renowned shooter and it should be submitted within 15 days. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that Aiyappa, being a renowned shooter, is entitled to possess 10 Arms as per the Arms Act, 1959 and Rules framed there under. He now has three arms, and had applied for four additional arms. The DC and SP are dodging the issue on one pretext or the other, he alleged.

“The DC or the Competent Authority is required to dispose of an application made by any holder of Arms licence to add or delete Arms in terms of schedule 5 of Rule 40, within an outer limit of seven days. Contrary to it, the DC has held on to the application for three long years, which is blatantly contrary to the statute,” said Justice M Nagaprasannam, quashing the final notice dated December 28, 2022 issued by the DC.

The petitioner claimed that he has participated in shooting events at national and state level and he is a life member of the National Rifle Association of India.

He argued that he would come within the definition of a ‘Renowned Shooter’ in terms of the Arms Rules, 2016. The government advocate contended that the petitioner can possess only two arms.

The court said the petitioner is well within the statutory claim made for possession of four more arms, the court added. 

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com