Disposed

M.P. Varghese @ George Mundackal, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jan 2021WP(C)/5/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning rejection of firearm license renewal, the Court held that the petitioner could approach the 2nd respondent with a proper appeal. The Court condoned the statutory delay due to prior representations by the petitioner and the government, allowing the appeal if filed within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to submit an appeal to the 2nd respondent within two weeks, and an order shall be passed after hearing within two months.

M.P. Varghese @ George Mundackal, Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C).No.5 OF 2021(A)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.5 OF 2021(A)

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

M.P. VARGHESE @ GEORGE MUNDACKAL, AGED 70 YEARS S/O.POULOSE, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, KALLUVAYAL P.O., SULTAN BATHERY, WYANAD DISTRICT-673592.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MEERA GOPINATH SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (G) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶14

3 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WYANAD-673121.

¶15

4 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, SULTAN BATHERY, WYANAD-673592.

¶16

5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WYANAD-673121.

¶17

6 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SULTAN BATHERY, WYANAD-673592.

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SMT.PRINCY XAVIER ,GP

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.5 OF 2021(A)

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 5^th day of January 2021

¶25

The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his application for renewal of license for possession of fire arms as per Ext.P5 order issued as early as on 01.12.2017. It is stated that he had submitted Ext.P6 representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Revenue Department for renewal, in the year 2019 and thereafter the Government had as per Ext.P7 letter forwarded his application to the 2^nd respondent for appropriate action and the 2^nd respondent in turn forwarded it to the 3^rd respondent who issued Ext.P9 order on 02.11.2020 forwarding a copy of Ext.P5 order stating that the application was already rejected and license was cancelled.

¶26

The contention of the petitioner was that in case the Government had rejected the application or forwarded it to the 2^nd respondent with a direction to treat it as an appeal, petitioner would have got his claim adjudicated properly.

¶27

The learned Government Pleader points out that Ext.P6 is not an appeal and that even Ext.P6 was not submitted either in time or before the appropriate authority. Pointing out the delay in approaching the authorities in accordance with the statutory provisions as also this Court, the learned Government Pleader points out that the application Ext.P6 cannot be treated as an appeal.

¶28

¶29

WP(C).No.5 OF 2021(A)

¶30

The petitioner relies on the judgment Ext.P10 and subsequent and previous judgments of this Court in which this Court has interfered with orders like Ext.P5. In the

¶31

circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner can approach the 2^nd respondent with a proper appeal which the 2^nd respondent shall consider in accordance with law. Since the petitioner has already approached the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Government and the Government had in turn directed respondents 2 and 3, respondents 2 and 3 had also occasion to consider the same during the relevant period from 2017 to 2020, I am of the view that the delay in approaching the 2^nd respondent would be liable to be condoned.

¶32

There shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the appeal if the petitioner submits the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Orders shall be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner taking note of the judgments relied on by the petitioner in accordance with law within a further period of two months.

¶33

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶34

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶35

rkc

¶36

WP(C).No.5 OF 2021(A)

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PU THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 03.07.1	BLISHED IN 984.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF RENEWAL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.	OF LICENCE
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED IN W.P.(C) 4728/2014 OF THIS COURT.	07.03.2014 HONOURABLE
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M1 DATED 06.11.2014 OF THE 3RD RESP	18383/2012 ONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M1/20 DATED 01.12.2017 OF THE 3RD RESP	14/36340/12 ONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTAT 29.01.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE	ION DATED PETITIONER
	BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONE DEPARTMENT.	R, REVENUE
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING G2/83/2019-REV DATED 17.04.2019 THE 1ST RESPONDENT.	S NO.REV- ISSUED BY
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE NO.LR(A5)15706/2019 DATED 30.05. 2ND RESPONDENT.	PROCEEDINGS 2019 OF THE
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDI 02.11.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ORDER NO.M1/2014/36340/12 DATED	NGS DATED ALONG WITH 01.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED IN W.P.(C)NO.17840/2015 OF THIS COURT.	23.06.2015 HONOURABLE

M.P. Varghese @ George Mundackal, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P. Varghese @ George Mundackal, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Ajith Kumar K.J

Shwas Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

K.J.Philipose Vs a.Jaya Thilak

M.Sadasivan Vs Kerala State Warehousing Corporation

Samson Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Dinesan T. Vs the District Collector - Malappuram