Remanded

Johny Joseph v. the Commissioner (Land Revenue)

Kerala HC5 Sept 2018WP(C)/6080/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside the appellate authority's dismissal of appeals due to delay and the District Collector's rejection of arms licence renewal applications, directing reconsideration within three months based on relevant binding precedents.

What did the court decide?

Orders of appellate authority and District Collector set aside; remitted to District Collector for reconsideration within three months.

Johny Joseph Vs the Commissioner (Land Revenue) — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 14TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 6080 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

JOHNY JOSEPH

¶8

S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 65 YEARS,NO.10, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/S:

¶11

1 THE COMMISSIONER (LAND REVENUE)

¶12

PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, MUSEUM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶13

2 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (DISTRICT COLLECTOR) CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶14

BY SR. G.P. SRI.B VINOD

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.09.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).40936/2017, WP(C).41822/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) Nos.40936 & 41822/2017&6080/2018

¶17

:-2-:

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

These writ petitions are filed challenging the orders rejecting the applications preferred by the petitioners for renewal of Arms Licence. In W.P(C)Nos.6080/2018 and 41822/2017, the petitioners also challenge the proceedings of the appellate authority rejecting the applications for condonation of delay and consequently rejecting the statutory appeals preferred by them against the orders rejecting the applications for renewal of Arms Licence. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the reasons stated for rejection of the licence are completely untenable. It is also stated that the rejection of the appeals in two of these cases without considering the matter on merits is unsustainable in view of the fact that the question is covered in favour of the petitioners by several decisions of this Court. It is stated that the Circulars relied upon by the respective District

¶20

WP(C) Nos.40936 & 41822/2017&6080/2018

¶21

:-3-:

¶22

Collectors to reject the applications for renewal have been considered by this Court and have been found to be unsustainable in law.

¶23

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that even in case the orders of the appellate authority are set aside and a fresh consideration of the appeal is directed on the merits of the matter, the issue will have to be reconsidered since the validity of the Arms Licence had expired long back and fresh police reports will have to be obtained in the matter. It is therefore contended that

¶24

the matter may be remitted to the original authority for a consideration of the question of renewal.

¶25

Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the

¶26

opinion that the issue is liable to be reconsidered in the light of the binding decisions of this Court.

¶27

The orders of the appellate authority rejecting the appeals on the ground of delay are set aside. The orders of the District

¶28

WP(C) Nos.40936 & 41822/2017&6080/2018

¶29

:-4-:

¶30

Collector rejecting the applications for renewal are also set aside. There will be a direction to the respective District Collectors to consider the applications preferred by the petitioners for renewal of Arms Licence, taking note of the judgments relied upon by the petitioners. The petitioners shall be put on notice and heard and the documents as well as the precedents produced by them shall be considered, before orders are passed by the District Collector. All necessary reports shall be obtained and considered and final orders

¶31

shall be passed by the District Collector within a period of three

¶32

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

The writ petitions are ordered accordingly.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

5^th September,2018

¶36

ANU SIVARAMAN , JUDGE

¶37

MBS/

¶38

-true copy-

¶39

WP(C) Nos.40936 & 41822/2017&6080/2018

¶40

:-5-:

¶41

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2014 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 14.8.2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.9.2017 IN WPC NO.30167/2017 OF THE HIGH COURT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.LR-A242736/17 DATED 12.12.2017 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

Johny Joseph v. the Commissioner (Land Revenue)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johny Joseph v. the Commissioner (Land Revenue)

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

Terrance Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Sindhu Vs State of Kerala

Silpa Projects and Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Thiruvantnhapuram Development Authority (Trida)

The Manager, Life Insurance Corporaiton of India Vs v.N.Jhansi

Ayub K.M Vs Village Officer, Pazhayannur Village

K.Y.Varghese Vs State of Kerala