Allowed

E.K.Unnikammed Alias Kunhu v. the District Magistrate

Kerala HC1 Dec 2020WP(C)/7674/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that Section 15 of the Arms Act applies to all licences, not just renewals. It found the issuance of a one-year licence invalid without recorded reasons, directing the respondent to issue a revised three-year licence.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is entitled to a validity of three years for the Ext.P2 licence; the respondent is directed to issue a revised licence with three years validity.

E.K.Unnikammed Alias Kunhu Vs the District Magistrate — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.7674 OF 2020(H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

E.K.UNNIKAMMED ALIAS KUNHU, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.MOYINKUTTY (LATE), PUTHANPURACKAL HOUSE, EDAVANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676541.

¶8

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

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676505.

¶11

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-12-2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.7674/2020

[CR]

: 2 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

Dated this the 1^st day of December, 2020

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶21

The petitioner, who is a Form III Arms Licensee

¶22

under the Arms Act and the Rules, is before this Court seeking to direct the respondent to grant Arms licence for a period of three years from the date of issue of Ext.P2.

¶23

The petitioner held a gun bearing licence. In the year 2004, the petitioner submitted application seeking renewal of licence. The renewal was declined as a criminal case was pending against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case.

¶24

As the licence of the petitioner was not renewed, the petitioner approached this Court filing W.P.(C)

¶25

W.P.(C) No.7674/2020

¶26

: 3 :

¶27

No.2735/2019. In the said writ petition, the respondent submitted that since the application is of the year 2004, no records could be traced out in order to consider the application for renewal of licence. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court granting liberty to the petitioner to submit fresh application for Arms licence.

¶28

The petitioner thereupon submitted application for issue of licence. The petitioner submits that the respondent granted him Ext.P2 licence as per proceedings dated 28.11.2019, with a validity of one year. According to the petitioner, the normal period for grant of licence is three years and the respondent committed an illegality in granting a licence for a shorter period of one year. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to direct the respondent to grant licence for a period of three years.

¶29

The respondent resisted the writ petition filing a statement. The respondent stated that the Central Government had enacted Arms Rules, 2016. Rule 15 emphasises a new Unique Identity Number (UIN) for every

¶30

W.P.(C) No.7674/2020

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

valued licence. The rule also directs to keep a record in electronic format in Arms License Issuance System (ALIS) under the Home Department of Central Ministry. According to the respondent, Section 15 of the Arms Act, 1959 deals with duration and renewal of licence. As per Section 15, the duration of renewal of licence is for three years. Since the petitioner's application was not for renewal of an existing licence but for grant of a new licence, the respondent is justified in prescribing a licence for a period of less than three years.

¶33

The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the petitioner has not exhausted his appellate remedy. The petitioner can very well apply for renewal of gun licence after the expiry of the present licence. Therefore, the writ petition is unnecessary and unwarranted, and is liable to be rejected.

¶34

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

¶35

In short, the argument raised on behalf of the respondent is that as Section 15 of the Arms Act, 1959

¶36

W.P.(C) No.7674/2020

¶37

: 5 :

¶38

relates to duration and renewal of licence, the provision will apply only in cases of renewal of existing licences. Section

¶39

15 of the Arms Act, 1959 reads as follows:-

¶40

“ 15. Duration and renewal of licence ―(1) A licence under section 3 shall, unless revoked earlier, continue in force for a period of three years from the date on which it is granted:

¶41

Provided that such a licence may be granted for a shorter period if the person by whom the licence is required so desires or if the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing considers in any case that the licence should be granted for a shorter period.

¶42

Provided further that the licence granted under Section 3 shall be subject to the conditions specified in sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 and the licensee shall produce the licence along with the fire-arm or ammunition and connected document before the licensing authority after every five years from the date on which it is granted or renewed.

¶43

(2) A licence under any other provision of Chapter II shall, unless revoked earlier, continue in force for such period from the date on which it is granted as the licensing authority may in each case determine.

¶44

(3) Every licence shall, unless the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise decides in any case, be renewable for the same period for which the licence was originally granted and shall be so renewable from time to time, and the provisions of sections 13 and 14 shall apply to the renewal of a licence as they apply to the grant thereof.”

¶45

W.P.(C) No.7674/2020

¶46

: 6 :

¶47

The learned Government Pleader argued that since Section 15(1) provides that a licence under Section 3 shall, unless revoked earlier , continue in force for a period of three years from the date on which it is granted, the said Section 15(1) would apply only in cases of renewal of an existing licence. The words ' unless revoked earlier ' indicate that the Section is intended only to apply to renewal of licence. Consequently, the respondent is empowered to prescribe a lesser period of validity of licence in cases of grant of fresh gun licence.

¶48

The argument of the learned Government Pleader would look impressive at the first blush. However, a closer scrutiny of Section 15 would indicate that the provision is not intended to apply only in cases of renewal of licence. Firstly, the subtitle to Section 15 is “Duration and renewal of licence”. Therefore, prima facie , the provision would apply to duration of all licences whether issued for the first time or issued by way of renewal.

¶49

The words “ unless revoked earlier ” are not

¶50

W.P.(C) No.7674/2020

¶51

: 7 :

¶52

intended to make the Section applicable only to cases of renewal of licences. On the other hand, the said words are intended to indicate that all licences which are issued newly or by way of renewal, can be revoked earlier by the licensing authority.

¶53

The condition for issuing licence of a lesser duration is given in the first proviso to Section 15. The first proviso makes it clear that the licence may be granted for a shorter period if the person by whom the licence is required so desires or if the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing considers in any case that the licence should be granted for a shorter period.

¶54

In the petitioner’s case, he has not requested for issuance of licence for a lesser period. Ext.P2 proceedings would show that the licensing authority has found that all provisions laid down in the Arms Rules, 2016, are complied with and the applicant was able to justify the necessity of a valid gun licence for his self protection. The proceedings nowhere indicate any reason for grant of licence with lesser

W.P.(C) No.7674/2020

: 8 :

validity period.

In the absence of reasons in writing given by the licensing authority for grant of licence for a lesser validity period, the action of the respondent in limiting the licence period of the petitioner to one year is not justified. It has to be further noted that in case the licensing authority is of the opinion that the licence granted to the petitioner is liable to be revoked earlier, the licensing authority indeed has such power under the Arms Act.

¶59

Furthermore, in view of sub-Section 3 of Section 15, once the petitioner is issued licence with a validity period of one year, renewal of such licence can also be ordinarily only for the same period. In other words, since the petitioner has been issued with a gun licence with a validity period of one year, future renewal of the licence would also be for one year period, unless the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise decides. The issuance of fresh licence for the reduced period would therefore be disadvantageous to the licensee.

¶60

W.P.(C) No.7674/2020

¶61

: 9 :

¶62

For all the above reasons, this Court finds that the action of the respondent in issuing a fresh gun licence to the petitioner with a shorter duration, is violative of Section 15 of

¶63

the Arms Act, 1959. Accordingly, it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to get the validity of Ext.P2 licence for a period of three years from the date of its issue. The respondent is therefore directed to issue to the petitioner a revised licence with the period of validity of three years. It is made clear that if the licensing authority finds it necessary to revoke the licence before the expiry of the three-year period, for valid reasons, the licensing authority will be free to do so in accordance with law.

¶64

The writ petition is allowed as above.

¶65

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/30.11.2020

W.P.(C) No.7674/2020

: 10 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶71

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE HON'B W.P.(	COPY LE C C)NO.	OF OURT 2735	THE JUDGMENT OF THIS DATED 01.07.2019 IN OF 2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE 28.11	COPY .2019	OF OF T	THE PROCEEDINGS DATED HE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE HON'B W.P.(	COPY LE C C)NO.	OF OURT 35418	THE JUDGMENT OF THIS DATED 14.01.2019 IN /2018.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE DATED	COPY 13.1	OF 2.201	THE GAZETTE OF INDIA 9.

E.K.Unnikammed Alias Kunhu v. the District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.K.Unnikammed Alias Kunhu v. the District Magistrate

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

M.K.Varkey Vs State of Kerala

Mahendran Vs Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation

K.R.Baiju Vs the General Manager

Heather Constructions Vs Union of India

Cavinkara Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

N.Bhaskaran Nair Vs State of Kerala