Disposed

M.a.Jose v. the District Collector

Kerala HC9 Jun 2017WP(C)/10759/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the non-implementation of an appellate order remitting his arms licence renewal application for fresh consideration. The High Court directed the licensing authority to comply with the order within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The licensing authority directed to give effect to Ext.P2 order within two weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment.

M.a.Jose Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/19TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 10759 of 2017 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M.A.JOSE, MOOTHEDAN HOUSE, PARIYARAM P.O., CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR PIN-680721.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SAJI KURIACHAN SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-680001.

¶11

2.THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.J. MANURAJ

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 10759 of 2017 (T)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

----------------------EXHIBIT P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C7-71900/2011/K. DIS DATED 04/08/2012.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(A)2-36111/2012 DATED 22/03/2014.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No.10759 of 2017

¶27

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2017

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner was holding a licence under the Arms Act. When the term of the licence expired, the petitioner preferred an application for renewal of the same. The application preferred by the petitioner for renewal of the licence has been rejected by the licencing authority. The decision of the licencing authority was challenged by the petitioner in appeal, and as per Ext.P2 order, the Appellate Authority remitted the matter to the licencing authority for fresh consideration. The grievance of the petitioner is that though Ext.P2 order was passed as early as on 22.03.2014, the licencing authority is yet to give effect to the said order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks

¶30

W.P.(C) No.10759 of 2017

¶31

-2-

¶32

appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶34

as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶35

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the licencing authority to give effect to Ext.P2 order, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

Sd/- P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶37

bpr

M.a.Jose v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.a.Jose v. the District Collector

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

Radhamani Amma Vs the District Collector, Kollam

M.B.Moidu Haji Vs the District Collector

M/S. Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kerala Water Authority

Chandran Vs Suma

A.L.Jacob Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Anju S Vs Federal Bank