Remanded

K.Daniel v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Kerala HC11 Feb 2020WP(C)/3833/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's Arms licence renewal application. The Court held that the rejection was untenable as the order lacked reasons referable to Section 14 of the Arms Act. The writ was dismissed with directions to reconsider the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Rejected the impugned order; directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the appeal within six weeks.

K.Daniel Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 22ND MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.3833 OF 2019(D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.DANIEL AGED 62 YEARS S/O. OMMEN KUNCHANDY, NIRMITHI, VILAKUPARA POST, KOLLAM

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.T.N.SREEKALA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM-691 001

¶12

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EROOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL-691 312

¶13

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

GP. SMT. K.M. RASHMI

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.3833 OF 2019(D)

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 11th day of February 2020

¶20

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following

¶21

reliefs:-

¶22

“(a) To call for the records leading to Ext.P2 and P4 and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction and to quash the same;

¶23

(b) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to renew the license granted to the petitioner as per the provisions contained in the Arms Act 1959;

¶24

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to renew the license granted to the petitioner.”

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's application for renewal of Arms licence has

¶27

been rejected for the reason that the petitioner was involved in a

¶28

crime registered in Eroor Police Station as Crime No.104/2009 and

¶29

WP(C).No.3833 OF 2019(D)

¶30

¶31

he was acquitted in 2017 and the petitioner's son and brother are involved in criminal cases and that the petitioner resides near a forest area and the gun may be abused for hunting and there is a chance of misuse. It is stated that the petitioner had filed appeal against Ext.P2 order before the 1^st respondent. When order on the appeal were not passed, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition as W.P.(C).No.34635 of 2018 and Ext. P3 judgment was passed directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on the appeal within two months. It is stated that thereafter, Ext. P4 order has been issued rejecting the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext. P4 order is illegal as no grounds are stated for rejection as contemplated under Section 14 and 15 of the Arms Act.

¶32

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the specific provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act as well as decisions of this Court in Ganesh Prasad v. Board of Revenue [2005 (2) KLT 645] and many other subsequent judgments, the non-renewal of licence by the District Collector on grounds which are not referable to Section 14 of the

¶33

WP(C).No.3833 OF 2019(D)

¶34

¶35

Act are unsustainable. The decision of this Court in Chandran Nair v. Additional District Magistrate [2015 (1) KLT 41] is also relied on.

¶36

A statement has been filed by the 1^st respondent in the above case. It is stated that on the application preferred by the petitioner for renewal of his Arms licence before the District Magistrate, an enquiry has been conducted by the Additional District Magistrate through District Police Chief and a report revealed that the applicant was involved in Crime No.104/2009 in Eroor Police Station and he was acquitted from the charges in 2017. The applicant's son is accused in Crime No.04/2018 and applicant's brother is accused in Crime No.1709/17. The report also stated that the petitioner is residing near the forest area lying within the limit of “Shenthurni wild life sanctuary” and the possession of the gun may cause risk to wild life and the petitioner is old and there is a chance of misuse of gun and the renewal of Arms licence was not recommended. It is stated that challenging the rejection order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent. It is stated that the Arms licence

¶37

WP(C).No.3833 OF 2019(D)

¶38

¶39

possessed by the petitioner is in Form-III for self protection during the hearing before the Additional District Magistrate. Petitioner stated that the Arms licence is highly necessary for crop protection and self protection. In consideration of all aspects, 1^st respondent rightly rejected the renewal of Arms licence vide Ext.P4 order.

¶40

Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the application preferred by the petitioner for renewal of licence without any reasons which are referable to Section 14 of the Act is untenable. There is no finding that the petitioner is unfit for holding the licence under the Act. In the instant case, the petitioner seeks renewal of a licence which had already been granted to him. The reasons mentioned in the order rejecting the renewal of application are untenable. The orders of rejection are, therefore, set aside. There will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to re-consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law, taking note of the precedence relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Orders shall be passed, after hearing the petitioner also, within a

¶41

WP(C).No.3833 OF 2019(D)

¶42

¶43

period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶44

judgment.

¶45

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

SVP

WP(C).No.3833 OF 2019(D)

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX

¶53

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶54

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.K.DIS 56129/2014/M3 DATED 8.07.2015,ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶55

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.K.DIS 44691/17/M3 DATED 25.07.2018,ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) 34635 OF 2018,DATED 21.11.2018

¶56

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L.R.(A) 2- 40504/2018, DATED 04.12.2018 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

K.Daniel v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Daniel v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

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.P.Varghese, Vs Government of Kerala

Sakeer Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Gurudeva Rice and Agro Products Private Limited, Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation

George Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Ambily a.R., Vs State of Kerala

Rejimon P.K., Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited