Disposed

Tomy Thomas K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 May 2011WP(C)/9695/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a District Rifle Association member seeking a new rifle after surrendering an old one. The court directed the District Collector to pass necessary orders for granting the relief within two weeks, despite the original license having expired, and ruled that a fresh police report was not required.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders for granting the necessary reliefs within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, without calling for a fresh police repo

Tomy Thomas K Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 9695 of 2011(J)

PETITIONER:

TOMY THOMAS. K, KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE MALAYATTOOR PO, KALADY.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE

SMT.M.J.INDUJA

RESPONDENTS:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HOME DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶15

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM 682 030.

¶16

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM 682 030.

¶17

SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDAKUKMAR BABU

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C)No.9695/2011

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶22

EXHIBIT P1	:	CERTIFICATE DTD.26/11/10 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF IDUKKI.
EXHIBIT P2	:	PROCEEDINGS DTD. 15/12/07 ON THE FILES OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM RENEWING THE VALIDITY PETITIONER'S LICENSE UP TO 31.12.10.
EXHIBIT P3	:	SALE CERTIFICATE DTD.10.7.09.
EXHIBIT P4	:	APPLICATION DTD.16.7.09.
EXHIBIT P5	:	RECEIPT DTD. 30.9.09 EVIDENCING THE SURRENDER OF GUN.
EXHIBIT P6	:	REPRESENTATION DTD.1.10.09 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE.
EXHIBITS. P7 & P7(a)	:	APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENSE AND CHELAN DTD.1.12.10.
EXHIBIT P8	:	PETITION DTD.29.12.10.
EXHIBIT P9	:	PROCEEDINGS DTD.27.1.11 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
RESPONDENTS'EXHIBIT	:	NIL
		True copy
		P.A. to Judge

¶23

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶24

W.P.(C) No.9695 OF 2011

¶25

Dated this the 26^th day of May 2011

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner, who is stated as a member of the District Rifles Association, Idukki, possessing one .22 Bore SBBL and one SBML Gun, which are already endorsed in Ext.P1 gun license No.389/ALY. The validity of the license was to expire on 31-12-2010 as borne by Ext.P1. The petitioner wanted to purchase one .22 Bore rifle from elsewhere after surrendering the SBBL Gun. Appropriate steps were taken by the petitioner in this regard and Ext.P4 application was filed before the District Collector (who is the concerned authority and the 2^nd respondent herein) as early as on 16-07-2009 for the requisite relief. The petitioner surrendered the Gun on 30-09-2009 as borne by Ext.P5 and filed a reminder as borne by Ext.P6 dated 01-10-2009; followed by Ext.P7 dated 01-12-2010. All the requirements as specified are also stated as satisfied and finally, the matter was considered by the 2^nd respondent, who passed Ext.P9 order dated 27-01-2011 passing the order as follows:

¶28

“Enquiry report has called for from S.P Ernakulam Rural, Aluva and as per the reference 2^nd cited Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural Aluva has reported that there is no objection in extending the area validity to “All Kerala” and purchase of a new weapon.”

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by this time, the license of the Gun has already expired and the stand now

¶30

taken by the concerned respondent is to start the proceedings

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C) No.9695/2011

¶33

afresh; which is stated as not correct or proper and is sought to be interfered by this Court.

¶34

Heard the learned Govt. Pleader as well.

¶35

The facts and the sequence of events are not seen disputed

¶36

by filing any counter affidavit. The materials on record reveal that the necessary application was preferred by the petitioner, well within time, during the currency of license and further steps were pursued accordingly. The matter was inquired into by the concerned authority and Ext.P9 order was passed, on the basis of clearance issued by the SP of Police, Aluva, as referred to in Ext.P9 itself.

¶37

In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 2^nd respondent to pass appropriate orders for granting the necessary reliefs, notwithstanding the expiry of Ext.P1 license during the pendency of the proceedings and without any necessity to call for any fresh report from the Police. The proceedings shall be finalised, accordingly, at the earliest, at any rate within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the 2^nd respondent for taking further steps.

¶39

vdv

¶40

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

Tomy Thomas K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tomy Thomas K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Abdul Rahiman Vs Executive Engineer & Others

Mathew Joseph Vs Sub Registrar

Sharmila Vs State

Joseph K.C Vs Kerala Financial Corporation and Another

P.v.Joseph Kunju Vs State of Kerala and Others

Salomi George Vs S.B.T.