Allowed

V Vivek v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2024WP/20697/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the rejection of an application for a revolver license. The court set aside the impugned order, directing the Commissioner of Police to reconsider the application based on agricultural land records and complete the process within three months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 27.10.2021 is set aside, and the respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the application for a revolver license within three months.

V Vivek Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:47798 WP No. 20697 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 20697 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

V VIVEK AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O. H. VENKATESHA, R/AT. NO.28, 1ST CROSS, KODIGEHALLI, KADUGUDI POST, BENGALURU-560 067.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRABHUGOUDA B TUMBIGI., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY CHIEF SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE WHITE FIELD DIVISION, BENGALURU EAST, BENGALURU-560 066.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MAHADEVPURA, WHITEFIELD DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 048.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:47798 WP No. 20697 of 2024

¶20

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 036.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR., AGA)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FORM THE RESPONDENTS SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 27.10.2021 PASSED IN NO. 143/ARMS-3/HOSHAPA/2021 BY THE R3 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner asserts that his family owns agricultural lands situated in various survey numbers: Sy. Nos.39/5 and 39/11, measuring a total of 3 acres, and Sy. No.53/5, measuring 1 acre and 15 guntas, located at Kodigehalli Village, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru. Additionally, the family owns land in Sy. Nos.168, 169, and 170, measuring approximately 2 acres, situated at Doddamale Village, Tekal Hobli, Maluru Taluk, Kolar District, totaling about 6 acres. The petitioner states that valuable trees are standing on these lands.

¶28

The petitioner’s father, aged over 80 years, has already been granted a license for a double-barrel gun. The petitioner now seeks a license for a revolver/pistol/handgun for

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:47798 WP No. 20697 of 2024

¶30

self-protection and to safeguard the valuable trees on the family’s agricultural land.

¶31

The petitioner previously filed a complaint against trespassers who forcibly took produce from the agricultural lands. After investigation, the police submitted a ‘B’ report. The petitioner contends that the police only conducted a single patrol of the agricultural lands and residential property. Consequently, the petitioner asserts a continued need for a revolver license.

¶32

There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner as of the date of this order. The rejection of the petitioner’s application by the 3rd respondent is based on a report from the Department of Wildlife, which stated that the petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation to prove his involvement in agricultural activities. However, the petitioner has submitted a copy of the record of rights, indicating that the lands are registered in his father’s name.

¶33

In view of the foregoing, the application requires reconsideration. Accordingly I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) The petition is allowed.

¶36

ii) The impugned order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the respondent No.3 is hereby set aside. The respondent

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:47798 WP No. 20697 of 2024

¶39

No.3 is hereby directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of license of possessing revolver/hand gun in accordance with law.

¶40

iii) The said exercise shall be concluded within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶41

Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶42

V Vivek v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Vivek v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Suresh. D. M. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sagheer Khan Vs Karnataka State Board of Awqof Darul Awqaf

Shri. H Duggappa Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Ditul Mehta Vs State of Karnataka

Parking Rhino Online Service Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Ms Merlyn Mirabel Rozario Vs State of Karnataka