JUDGMENT : P.M. MANOJ, J. This Writ Petition is preferred being aggrieved by the illegal, unauthorized, and high-handed acts allegedly committed by Respondents 5 to 9. The petitioner seeks the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1 lakh, together with permissible interest and damages for the losses sustained. 2. The petitioner, a senior citizen and a retired Joint RTO, was the holder of a valid arms license and the owner of a 0.32 caliber German-made Ceco revolver, acquired during the initial stage of his service. In 1993, pursuant to a letter issued by the Home Department (Ref: No. 5760/1993/Home dated 30.09.1993) and the orders of the then District Magistrate, Thrissur (Order No. CS/66725/1993 dated 25.10.1993), the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Thrissur West Police Station, directed the petitioner to surrender his revolver. 3. In compliance with the said order, the petitioner surrendered the revolver to the officer on 25.10.1993. The firearm was subsequently transferred to the Police Armoury/Unit Armoury for maintenance and safekeeping, as evidenced by the Seizure Mahazar marked as Exhibit P1. 4. It is further contended that, due to exigencies and inconveniences related to his employment in the Motor Vehicles Department, the petitioner was unable to renew his arms license promptly. Subsequently, in 2008, he applied for a fresh arms license before the District Magistrate, Ernakulam. Despite favourable reports from the Police, his application remained pending. Although a report was sought from the District Magistrate, Thrissur, and forwarded to the 6 th respondent (as evidenced by Ext.P2), the application was not considered until 2019. 5. Aggrieved by this delay, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court via WP(C) No. 25573 of 2018. The matter was disposed of by judgment dated 12.12.2018, wherein this Court found that the reasons assigned for withholding the license were unsustainable. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the 6threspondent to act in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Act. Pursuant to this direction, the 6threspondent issued an Arms License to the petitioner vide proceedings No. M3/70176/2016 dated 08.04.2019 (Ext.P4). 6. Upon obtaining the license, the petitioner approached the 8 th respondent via communication dated 26.06.2019, requesting the return of the 0.32 German-made Ceco Revolver surrendered in 1993. In response, the 8 th respondent, along with a letter from the 7 th respondent dated 25.06.2019, informed the petitioner that his revolver had been destroyed on 27.10.2011. 6. Upon obtaining the license, the petitioner approached the 8 th respondent via communication dated 26.06.2019, requesting the return of the 0.32 German-made Ceco Revolver surrendered in 1993. In response, the 8 th respondent, along with a letter from the 7 th respondent dated 25.06.2019, informed the petitioner that his revolver had been destroyed on 27.10.2011. This destruction was purportedly carried out under the orders of the 5 th respondent, citing MHA letter No. H4-76004/97 dated 27.10.2011. 7. In such circumstances, it is contended that the 5 th respondent acted without any authority under the Arms Act by destroying the revolver surrendered in 1993, without adhering to the mandatory procedures contemplated under Rule 47 of the Arms Rules, 2016 . Specifically, the petitioner highlights the proviso to (7), which mandates that the District Magistrate shall, before passing an order of forfeiture, serve a notice under Section 21 (4) of the Act, in a manner consistent with the service of summons under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. No such notice was ever served upon the petitioner. 8. Furthermore, there was a failure to comply with Rule 47 (3), which requires the issuance of a formal receipt to the depositor and the transmission of a copy to the licensing authority, containing the particulars of the weapon and the depositor’s details. In the absence of such procedural compliance, the forfeiture under (7) is fundamentally illegal, arbitrary, and void. 9. It is further contended that the subordinate officer to the 4 th respondent, upon receiving the weapon from the petitioner, deposited it in the Unit Armoury/Police Armoury under the administrative charge of the 7 th respondent, where it remained in official custody until at least 05.07.2011. 10. It is further contended that the 7 th respondent was fully aware that the grant of a fresh license was pending consideration by the 6 th respondent, as a report had specifically been called for. This report, dated 05.07.2011, contained the petitioner’s full details. Given that the weapon was not destroyed until 27.10.2011, there is no justification for the failure to communicate the impending destruction to the petitioner. 11. In response to these illegalities, the petitioner preferred representations marked as Ext.P8, P9, P10, and P11 to Respondents 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, calling for action against those responsible for destroying the weapon in violation of the Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 2016 . 11. In response to these illegalities, the petitioner preferred representations marked as Ext.P8, P9, P10, and P11 to Respondents 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, calling for action against those responsible for destroying the weapon in violation of the Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 2016 . As these representations were ignored, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition in 2019. 12. Although the petition was filed on 25.09.2019, no counter affidavit was filed by the respondents until 10.04.2026. Despite various court directions, including one on 25.08.2025, the respondents chose to record a statement from the petitioner after a lapse of six years instead of filing the required affidavit. Furthermore, a glaring discrepancy has emerged regarding the identity of the weapon: while the petitioner surrendered a German-made Ceco 0.32 revolver, the proceedings dated 27.10.2011 and a communication from the 7threspondent (Ext.P7) claim the destruction of a "POESSA" 0.32 revolver (No. 1468). 13. Subsequently, the 4 th respondent, through the Commissioner of Police, Thrissur City, finally filed a counter-affidavit. In this, it is admitted that the weapon was surrendered to the West Police Station on 25.10.1993, pursuant to Order No.57460/93/Home dated 30.09.1993. The weapon was taken into custody via a Mahazar prepared on 25.10.1993 by the then Assistant Sub-Inspector and subsequently handed over to the Deputy Commandant, District Armed Reserve, Thrissur. 14. The primary thrust of the Respondents' contention concerns the significant delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the police authorities to reclaim the weapon. It is alleged that it was only in 2019 (noted in the counter as a delayed request) that the petitioner sought its return. In response, the Inspector of Police communicated that the weapon had already been destroyed in accordance with the directions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, vide letter No. H4-76004/1997 dated 27.10.2011. 15. It is further stated that, upon enquiry, it was revealed that a list of 722 firearms deposited at the Armed Reserve Camp, Thrissur, for a prolonged period had been prepared pursuant to the Ministry's directives. The criteria adopted for inclusion in this list were as follows: • Failure to claim the weapon; • Non-renewal or expiry of the arms license; and • Weapons seized pursuant to court orders. By G.O. (Rt) No. 2897/04/Home dated 30.12.2004, the Government permitted the destruction of such weapons through melting and subsequent sale to a steel factory in Kozhikode. 16. The criteria adopted for inclusion in this list were as follows: • Failure to claim the weapon; • Non-renewal or expiry of the arms license; and • Weapons seized pursuant to court orders. By G.O. (Rt) No. 2897/04/Home dated 30.12.2004, the Government permitted the destruction of such weapons through melting and subsequent sale to a steel factory in Kozhikode. 16. In compliance with this Government Order, the State Police Chief, Kerala, vide order No.44-27102/2011 dated 12.09.2011, directed the constitution of a Board. This Board was formally established as per Order No. E1/10841/2011/KEPA dated 27.09.2011, comprising: 1. The Inspector General of Police (Training) and Director of the Kerala Police Academy as Chairman; 2. The District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural; and 3. The Armourer Sub-Inspector, Thrissur. The Board took the necessary steps to destroy the 722 enlisted weapons, which included the petitioner’s firearm, as they had remained unclaimed for a prolonged period. On 27.10.2011, the Board dismantled the weapons, separating the iron, brass, and wooden components, and disposed of them in accordance with the standing Government directions. 17. It was further contended that the entire process was carried out in accordance with applicable Government Orders and prescribed procedures. The respondents further allege that the petitioner failed to renew his arms license for a prolonged period following the surrender of the weapon. 18. Notably, the counter-affidavit states that the specific reason for the initial seizure of the weapon can only be ascertained upon verification of Order No. 57460/93/Home dated 30.09.1993. The deponent suggests that the petitioner was under suspension during the relevant period and presumes that the seizure may have been connected to legal proceedings or circumstances warranting the cancellation of the license. However, despite this reliance on presumption, the respondent, while swearing the affidavit, admittedly made no effort to verify these reasons. He merely stated that the relevant records are presently unavailable. 19. Crucially, although the Writ Petition raises specific contentions regarding the mandatory procedures prescribed under Section 21 of the Arms Act and Rule 47 of the Arms Rules, the respondent’s counter-affidavit is silent on these points. It fails to clarify whether the procedure mandated by these provisions was followed, or specifically, whether the notice required under the proviso to (7) was ever issued or communicated to the petitioner. 20. I have heard Sri.K.R. Sunil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jimmy George, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 21. It fails to clarify whether the procedure mandated by these provisions was followed, or specifically, whether the notice required under the proviso to (7) was ever issued or communicated to the petitioner. 20. I have heard Sri.K.R. Sunil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jimmy George, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 21. It is an admitted fact that a German-made 0.32 Ceco revolver was surrendered by the petitioner and taken into custody by Sri Parameswaran K.K., who was then serving as the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at the Thrissur West Police Station. Upon taking custody of the said firearm, the competent officer—specifically the 8 th respondent—failed to issue a formal receipt as mandated under Rule 47 (3) of the Arms Rules. Rule 47 (3) reads : “(3) Where any arm or ammunition is deposited by an owner under sub-section (1) of Section 21 , in a police station or unit armoury or with a dealer holding a licence in Form VIII, the officer in-charge of the police station or unit armoury or the licensed dealer, as the case may be, shall attach to each article deposited, a card and issue a receipt to the depositor and send a copy to the authority who granted the licence or renewed it last, containing the following particulars, namely- (i) Description (No. etc.) of the article; (ii) Particulars of licence or exemption (if any); (iii) Name and address of the depositor; (iv) Serial No. in register and date of deposit; (v) Date due for forfeiture or disposal; (vi) Signature of the depositor; and (vii) Signature of the dealer or officer in-charge of police station or unit armoury” Moreover, pursuant to Rule 47 (7), the firearm should have been handed over to the District Malkhana. This sub-rule protects the right of the depositors or their legal representatives to reclaim or dispose of any arms or ammunition under Section 21 within the stipulated time, as provided in the table appended to the Rule. Similarly, while (3) of the Arms Act empowers the District Magistrate to forfeit deposited weapons, (4) mandates the issuance of a written notice to be served upon the depositor. 22. Nowhere in the counter-affidavit is it stated that such procedures were adopted by either the Board or the District Magistrate prior to the destruction of the weapon in question. Furthermore, a significant dispute exists regarding the identity of the destroyed firearm. 22. Nowhere in the counter-affidavit is it stated that such procedures were adopted by either the Board or the District Magistrate prior to the destruction of the weapon in question. Furthermore, a significant dispute exists regarding the identity of the destroyed firearm. The petitioner surrendered a 0.32 calibre German-made Ceco revolver, whereas the list provided by the learned Government Pleader indicates that at Serial No. 680, a "0.32 mm revolver No. 1468" was destroyed on 26.10.1993. Notably, the manufacturer's name is missing from the respondents' records; therefore, the contention that the petitioner’s specific revolver was the one destroyed remains unsubstantiated. 23. Evaluating the contentions of both sides, it is evident that the materials produced by the 4 th Respondent fail to show compliance with the procedures contemplated under Section 21 (4) or Rule 47 . Consequently, the actions taken by the respondents are patently arbitrary and illegal. 24. The issue of damages sustained by the petitioner must be addressed by respondent No.1 upon consideration of the Ext.P8 representation. Furthermore, necessary action against the officials responsible for the loss and illegal destruction of the weapon should be determined by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, following a report from the 4 th respondent. 25. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, there shall be a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to dispose of the representations marked as Exts.P8 to P11. Considering the significant lapse of time, it cannot be presumed that the original representations remain available in the records of the respondents even today. 26. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to submit fresh copies of the said representations to the respondents. Upon receipt, the respondents are directed to take the representations on file and pass appropriate orders, after affording the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copies of the representations. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.