Allowed

V.K. Rajan v. District Collector

Kerala HC10 Jul 2017WP(C)/15994/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Kerala High Court allowed the challenge against the rejection of a weapon licence renewal application. The court held that in the absence of reasons specified in Section 14 of the Arms Act, the licensing authority was bound to grant the renewal. The court found the cited reason of physical fitness invalid under the Act and directed the authority to grant renewals within

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the licensing authority was directed to grant the licence renewal within four weeks.

V.K. Rajan Vs 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

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2017/19TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 15994 of 2017 (Y) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

V.K. RAJAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O CORUTHU, VALAYIL HOUSE, KIAZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM-683562.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.A.P.SUBHASH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶10

DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM,CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶11

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SURIN GEORGE IYPE

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WP(C).No. 15994 of 2017 (Y)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/01/2015 HAVING NO.M3/D.DIS/77643/2012 REJECTING RENEWAL OF THE APPLICATION

¶18

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER HAVING LR(A)219728/2015 DATED 17.12.2015

¶19

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT HAVING NO.D.DIS 3173/2016/M3,DATED 25.04.2017,CANCELING GUN LICENSE

¶20

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITION TAKEN ON 04.05.2017.

¶21

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 8.5.2017

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶28

W.P.(C) No.15994 of 2017

¶29

Dated this the 10^th day of July, 2017

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner was granted a licence to hold a weapon under the Arms Act ('the Act'). However, when the petitioner preferred an application for renewal of the licence, on the expiry of the term, the request was turned down. The petitioner challenged the said decision of licensing authority in appeal. By Ext.P2 order, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the licencing authority for fresh consideration. Even thereafter, the application for renewal of the licence was rejected by the licensing authority. Ext.P3 is the order

¶32

W.P.(C) No.15994 of 2017

¶33

-2-

¶34

passed in this connection. Ext.P3 is under challenge in the writ petition.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶36

as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶37

Ext.P2 order, by which the appellate authority

¶38

allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the order passed on the application for renewal on the earlier occasion, reads thus:

¶39

¥MàWÙV¼ßÏá¢ ¥ÈáÌtçø¶µ{á¢ ÌÙá:èÙçAÞ¿ÄßÏáæ¿ Mohammed Shafi Vs. District Collector (2012 (1) KLT 427) and Chandran Nair Vs. Additional District Magistrate (2015 (1) KHC 351) ÈOV ÕßÇßÈcÞÏB{á¢ ÉøßçÖÞÇßºîá.å¿ß ÕßÇßÈcÞÏB{ßW ÈßÜÕßÜáU ²øá èÜØXØí ÉáÄáAáK çÕ {ÏßW ÕµáMí 14_W ØâºßMßGáU µÞøÃBZ ÈßÜÈßWAáKáæICßW ÎÞdÄçÎ, ¥Õ ¥¿ßØíÅÞÈÎÞAß èÜØXØí ÉáÄáAáÕÞÈáU ²øá ¥çÉf ÈßøØßAáÕÞX ÉÞ¿áUáæÕKí ÕcµñÎÞAßÏßGáIí.å¥ÏÄßÈÞW ¥MàÜßW ©KÏßºî ÕØñáAæ{ Ø¢Ìtßºîí 1959_æÜ ¦ÏáÇ ÈßÏÎ¢ ÕµáMí 14_æÜ ÈßÌtÈµZ ÉÞÜßºîí ÉáÈ: ÉøßçÖÞÇßAáKÄßÈÞÏß çµØí ®ùÃÞµá{¢ ¼ßÜïÞ Î¼ßØíçd¿xßÈí

¶40

W.P.(C) No.15994 of 2017

¶41

-3-

¶42

¶43

§dÉµÞø¢ ÌÙá:èÙçAÞ¿ÄßÏáæ¿ ÉøÞÎVÖ¢ (3) dÉµÞøÎáU ÕßÇßÈcÞÏ¢ È¿MßÜÞAßÏßGáUÄÞµáKá.

¶44

In the light of Ext.P2 order, in the absence of any of the reasons indicated in Section 14 of the Act, the licensing authority is bound to grant the renewal sought for by the petitioner. There is no finding in the impugned order that the petitioner is not entitled to the renewal sought by him for any of the reasons mentioned in Section 14 of the Act. Further, it is seen that the District Police Chief has specifically mentioned in his remarks to the licensing authority that none of the reasons mentioned in Section 14 of the Act exist in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the renewal sought for by him. It is seen that the only reason stated in the impugned order to turn down the request of the petitioner is that he is not physically fit to handle the weapon. The same, according

¶45

W.P.(C) No.15994 of 2017

¶46

-4-

¶47

to me, is not a reason at all to decline the renewal sought. In so far as the renewal of the licence issued under the Act is governed by statutory provisions, the renewal sought in

¶48

the given case can be declined only in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act.

¶49

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the licensing authority is directed to grant the renewal of the licence sought for by the petitioner. This shall be done within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

¶52

bpr

V.K. Rajan v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K. Rajan v. District Collector

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

Santhosh Cyriac Vs Rajamanikyam

The Calicut City Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.D.2777 Vs S.Lalithabika IAS

State of Kerala Vs Sadique Muhammed

Soman Vs Branch Manager, Ernakulam District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Dr.Lakshmi J.K. Vs the Medical Council of India

Sulaiman Rawther Vs State of Kerala