Disposed

P.Ratnakaran v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Kerala HC1 Oct 2021WP(C)/20760/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged delays in disposing appeals against arms licence renewals rejection. The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the first respondent to consider the statutory appeals and pass orders within six weeks after providing a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the appeals covered by Exts. P7 to P9 within six weeks.

P.Ratnakaran Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 20760 OF 2021

¶4

PETITIONER/S:

¶5

1 P.RATNAKARAN,

¶6

S/O KANNAN MANIYANI, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARAYAMPALLAM HOUSE, MUNNAD VILLAGE, MUNNAD POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 541.

¶7

2 KUMARAN B,

¶8

S/O KANNAN, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADANTHAKODE HOUSE, KOLATHUR VILLAGE, KOLATHUR POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 541.

¶9

3 KAMALAKSHAN N.R.@ KUNHIKANNAN, S/O RAMAN, AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NARKALA HOUSE, PARAMPALLAM, MUNNAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 541.

¶10

BY ADVS. T.MADHU C.R.SARADAMANI SHAHID AZEEZ RENJISH S. MENON

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPOUND, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶13

W.P.(C) No.20760 of 2021

¶14

..2..

¶15

2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD, VIDYANAGAR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 123.

¶16

BY SMT.B. VINITHA, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) No.20760 of 2021

¶19

..3..

¶20

W.P.(C)No.20760 of 2021

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The grievance voiced by the petitioners in the writ petition concerns the long delay in disposing of the appeals preferred by them before the first respondent challenging the decisions of the competent authority under the Arms Act in rejecting the requests made for renewal of the arms licence. Exts.P4 to P6 are the orders rejecting the applications preferred by the petitioners for renewal of licence. Ext.P7 is the communication issued by the first respondent to the first petitioner intimating him about the decision taken in the stay petition filed by him along with the appeal. Exts.P8 and P9 are the communications indicating the acknowledgement of the appeals preferred by the second and third petitioners against Exts.P5 and P6.

¶23

W.P.(C) No.20760 of 2021

¶24

..4..

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶26

petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶27

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the appeals preferred by the petitioners which are referred to in Exts.P7 to P9 are statutory in nature, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the appeals covered by Exts.P7 to P9 communications, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. Ordered accordingly. The hearing ordered in terms of this judgment can be held through video conferencing as well.

¶28

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

¶29

rkj

¶30

W.P.(C) No.20760 of 2021

¶31

..5..

¶32

¶33

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶34

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE BEARING NO. GL 3653 DATED 30.3.2004 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT

¶35

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GUN LICENCE BEARING NO. GL 3864/KAS DATED 16.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT

¶36

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE BEARING NO. GL NO. 3185/KAS DATED 04.1.1992 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT

¶37

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.1.2020 WHEREBY THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF ARMS LICENCE OF THE FIRST PETITIONER WAS REJECTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT

¶38

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.1.2020 WHEREBY THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF ARMS LICENCE OF THE SECOND PETITIONER WAS REJECTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT

¶39

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.6.2019 WHEREBY THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF ARMS LICENCE OF THE THIRD PETITIONER WAS REJECTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT

¶40

Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER

¶41

W.P.(C) No.20760 of 2021

¶42

..6..

¶43

Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND PETITIONER

¶44

Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD PETITIONER

P.Ratnakaran v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ratnakaran 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shreyas Bejoy Vs the Director of Collegiate Education

Indifoss Analytical Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kerala Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation

Jagannatha Prasad @ Reghu, Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Jose, Vs Land Revenue Commissioner

V.V. Kunju Mol @ Kunjupennu Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan P.P Vs the State of Kerala