Allowed

Jacob George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2019WP(C)/5136/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Arms Act was not efficacious. It ruled that Section 34(3) of the Wild Life Protection Act did not apply to the renewal of a pre-2003 licence and quashed the order rejecting the renewal, directing the authority to renew it.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 is quashed and the licensing authority is directed to renew the licence of the petitioner forthwith.

Jacob George Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.5136 OF 2018(N)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

JACOB GEORGE, S/O.C.GEORGE, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAINILATHIL HOUSE, THIRUNELLY, MOOLANKAVU POST, KUPPADI VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR WAYANAD DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD-673122.

¶13

4 THE WILD LIFE WARDEN, WAYANAD WILD LIFE DIVISION, SULTHAN BATHERY POST, WAYANAD DISTRICT, KERALA-673592.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.5136 OF 2018(N)

¶16

¶17

W.P.(C)No.5136 of 2018

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner was holding licence to possess a firearm under the Arms Act (the Act) and the same was being renewed from time to time till 30.12.2011. The application preferred by the petitioner for renewal of licence for the year 2012 was declined by the competent authority holding that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said decision in appeal. Ext.P1 is the decision taken by the appellate authority. In terms of Ext.P1, the appellate authority remitted the matter to the licensing authority holding that the case of the petitioner is liable to be reconsidered in the light of the decision of this court in

¶20

Chandran Nair C. v. Additional District Magistrate,

¶21

Kasaragod and Others [2015(1) KHC 351] as the petitioner is a person who is granted licence once and no grounds for cancellation of the licence already granted as provided for in Section 14 of the Act exist in his case. The case of the petitioner is that despite Ext.P1 order, the licensing authority rejected the application for renewal in terms of Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶22

WP(C).No.5136 OF 2018(N)

¶23

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶25

The learned Government Pleader submitted that

¶26

the impugned order is appealable under Section 18 of the Act and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶27

The matter relates to the application for renewal of the licence submitted by the petitioner for the year 2012. The earlier order passed by the licensing authority on the application was challenged by the petitioner in appeal and the same was though decided in favour of the petitioner with a direction to the licensing authority to reconsider the matter, the application was again rejected on a ground which was not mentioned in the earlier order. The petitioner is behind this litigation for the last 8 years. I do not think that the alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Act is efficacious in a case of this nature.

¶28

It is seen that the reasons stated in Ext.P3 order except one are not sustainable in law, in the light of the decision of this Court in Chandran Nair. The reason mentioned in the impugned order which is not covered by the said decision is that the petitioner is not entitled for the renewal sought without the prior concurrence of the Chief Wild Life Warden, as provided for under Section 34(3) of the Wild Life Protection Act, as the petitioner is residing within 10 km from a wild life sanctuary. The

¶29

WP(C).No.5136 OF 2018(N)

¶30

¶31

learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said ground is also unsustainable in law as it applies only to new licences issued after 1.4.2003 with effect from which date sub section (3) of Section 34 of the Act was introduced. I am in agreement with the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the licence sought to be renewed was one issued prior to 1.4.2003, the provision contained in Section 34(3) of the Act does not apply to the subject licence.

¶32

In the result, Ext.P3 is quashed and the licensing authority is directed to renew the licence of the petitioner

¶33

forthwith.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶36

rkj

¶37

WP(C).No.5136 OF 2018(N)

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L.R.A5- 47241/12 DATED 25.5.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.9.2017 IN W.P.(C) 29887/2017 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1/2013/4064/12 DATED 5.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.V- 11016/16/2009-ARMS DATED 6.4.2010 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.1.2017 IN W.P.(C) 40621/2016 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

Jacob George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jacob George 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.M.Michael Vs Government of Kerala

P.C.Thomas and Co., Vs the Chief Engineer Sz Iii(Erstwhile) Central Public Works Department

P.C.Thomas and Co., Vs the Chief Engineer Sz III (Erstwhile) Central Public Works Department

Shine.P.G. Vs South Indian Bank

V P Muralidharan Vs Tom Jose

Metro Packaging Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police