The Court set aside an order rejecting renewal of an arms licence. Holding that the authority failed to consider evidence and new guidelines, it remanded the matter for fresh consideration within two weeks.
Exhibit P6 order set aside and matter remanded to District Magistrate Palakkad for disposal with notice of hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2015/2ND ASHADHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 17840 of 2015 (D)
PETITIONER :
MACHAT RAMESH, AGED 54 YEARS S/O. LATE K.CHANDRASEKHARAN MENON, RAJ BHAVAN MARUTHA ROAD P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 007.
BY ADVS.SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH SMT.MEERA GOPINATH
RESPONDENT(S) :
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PALAKKAD - 678 001.
3. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF PALAKKAD - 678 001.
4. THE TAHSILDAR PALAKKAD - 678 001.
5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
R1 TO R5 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
WP(C).No. 17840 of 2015 (D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
K.Vinod Chandran, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.17840 of 2015-D
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2015.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved with Exhibit P6 order passed by the District Magistrate under the Arms Act, 1959 and the Rules framed thereunder, with reference to Arms Licence No.706/PGT, being that of a SBBL gun. The petitioner assails Exhibit P6 order for reason of it being violative of the principles of natural justice and the same having been passed without any application of mind.
WP(C).17840 of 2015 - 2 -
that the Arms Licence which is referred to in Exhibit P6 is one issued for the SBBL gun and specifically it has been stated in Exhibit P6 that the petitioner was heard in the matter.
the aforesaid controversy, the matter can be disposed of, because this Court is of the view that Exhibit P6 is vitiated for total non-application of mind. The rejection is made for the reason that the District Police Chief has not recommended the renewal and that as per the Government Order cited therein, it was informed that the Government of India has now set new guidelines and made restrictions in granting renewals of Arms Licences. No details of the report of the District Police Chief or the new guidelines/regulations are forthcoming in Exhibit P6 order. This Court has considered the issue of renewal of Arms Licence and has held that mere recommendation of the District Police Chief should not regulate such issuance of licence, as has been held in Ganesh Prasad v Board of Revenue (LR) [2005 (2) KLT 645] and Chandran Nair C. v. Additional District Magistrate,
WP(C).17840 of 2015
Kasaragod and others [2015 (1) KHC 351], the copies of which will be produced before the authority. Exhibit P8 is a Circular issued by the Home Department of the State, which is also in favour of the petitioner. In such circumstances, Exhibit P6 would stand set aside. The petitioner would appear before the District Magistrate, Palakkad on 30.06.2015, on which date the petitioner shall be issued with a notice of hearing within two weeks from that date and the matter shall be disposed of keeping in mind the judgments afore-cited as also the Circular, Exhibit P8, within a period of two weeks from the date of hearing.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran, Judge
vku.
[ true copy ]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order rejecting renewal of arms licence was vitiated for total non-application of mind and violation of natural justice?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ganesh Prasad v Board of RevenueApplied¶46
Ganesh Prasad v Board of Revenue (LR) [2005 (2) KLT 645]
Chandran Nair C. v. Additional District Magistrate, Kasaragod and othersApplied¶46
Chandran Nair C. v. Additional District Magistrate, Kasaragod and others [2015 (1) KHC 351]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Machat Ramesh
State of Kerala
District Magistrate Palakkad
K.Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
