Disposed

P.P.Ashique v. the Commissioner of Police

Kerala HC11 Nov 2021WP(C)/2322/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking renewal of a gun licence, the High Court of Kerala directed the second respondent to consider the application within six weeks and grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing final orders.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to consider the renewal application within six weeks and provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

P.P.Ashique Vs the Commissioner of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 20TH KARTHIKA,

¶4

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2322 OF 2011

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

P.P.ASHIQUE

¶8

AGED 40 YEARS, PONNAMPARAMBATH HOUSE,, KONAD
BEACH, WEST HILL P.O., CALICUT-673005.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
SMT.SMITHA GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KOZHIKODE.

¶13

2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KOZHIKODE.

¶14

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SMT.RASHMI.K.M, SR.GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

-2-

¶19

W.P.(C). No. 2322 of 2011

¶20

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶21

W.P.(C) No.2322 of 2011

¶22

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2021

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The above writ petition is filed with following

¶25

prayers:

¶26

“i) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pass final orders granting the petitioner renewal of the gun licence/Armed licence as issued previously in Exhibit P1, forthwith.

¶27

ii) To declare that the delay in renewing Gun licence/Armed licence is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

iii) To issue such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶29

The petitioner claims to be a businessman

¶30

and the dealer of BMW vehicles. The petitioner

¶31

W.P.(C). No. 2322 of 2011

¶32

-3-

¶33

applied for a gun licence for self protection and he was issued with an arm licence. Subsequently he applied for renewal of the armed licence as evident by Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the proceedings of the District Collector, Kozhikode to the Commissioner of Police to forward the report whether there is any objection on security point of view for the renewal of the gun licence of the petitioner. Ext.P4 is the proceedings of the District Magistrate to the Sub Inspector of Karipur Police Station seeking report about the renewal of the gun licence. Ext.P5 is a letter issued by the Additional District Magistrate to the petitioner informing that the application for renewal of licence is received and necessary orders will be passed after conducting enquiry. Ext.P6 is a proceedings of the Additional District Magistrate to the Commissioner of Police requesting to reconsider the petition and forward a fresh report in this regard. Ext.P7 is a representation

¶34

-4-

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 2322 of 2011

¶36

submitted by the petitioner to the Additional District Magistrate for consideration of renewal application. Even now, the same is not considered. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

¶37

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

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. The counsel submitted that since the renewal application is not considered by the competent authority, the police registered a case against him alleging that the petitioner is in illegal possession of the arm. The counsel also submitted that all authorities submitted positive report to the licensing authority and there is

¶39

no justification for not passing final orders in the renewal application.

¶40

-5-

¶41

W.P.(C). No. 2322 of 2011

¶42

The learned Government Pleader on the

¶43

other hand, submitted that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case and that is why the renewal application is not considered.

¶44

After hearing both sides, I think this writ petition can be disposed of directing the licensing authority to consider the renewal application within a time frame. I don’t want to make any observation about the merit of the case. The petitioner is free to agitate the same before the licensing authority. An opportunity of hearing can be given to the petitioner and a time limit also can be fixed to dispose the renewal application by the licensing authority.

¶45

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶46

The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 and pass appropriate orders in it, in

¶47

-6-

¶48

W.P.(C). No. 2322 of 2011

¶49

accordance to law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

Before passing final orders, the 2^nd respondent will give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶51

The petitioner will produce a copy of this writ petition together with a certified copy of this judgment before the 2^nd respondent for compliance.

¶52

sd/-

¶53

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶54

das

¶55

-7-

¶56

W.P.(C). No. 2322 of 2011

¶57

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2322/2021

¶58

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶59

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE GUN LICENCE ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER ON 28.12.2006
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
27.3.2007 FOR RENEWAL OF GUN LICENCE
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
11.1.2010 FROM R3 TO R1
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
25.1.2010 R2 TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF
POLICE MALAPPURAM
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
24.12.2009 FROM R2 TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
24.9.2010 FROM R2 TO R1
EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
7.10.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE R2.

P.P.Ashique v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P.Ashique v. the Commissioner of Police

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

Bose Thomas Vs Kerala State Sports Council

Dr.Sidharadhan K. Vs State of Kerala

J. Nisamudeen, Vs State of Kerala

Vinila Varghese Vs the Branch Manager

Abdul Azeez Chetyanthod Vs the District Police Chief

K.Nazar Vs the State of Kerala