Court set aside an illegal Arms licence rejection order for lacking statutory grounds under Section 14 of Arms Act. Petitioner, a senior citizen whose application was refused solely on age, is directed to have it reconsidered.
Ext.P10 rejection order set aside and Respondent directed to reconsider petitioner's renewal application under Section 14.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.5254 OF 2019(F)
PETITIONER:
K.K.UMMER, AGED 66 YEARS USHUS, KORATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARANCHIRA, KATTOOR P.O.THRISSUR 680702.
BY ADVS. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.K.S.ROCKEY SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE SRI.GEORGE RENOY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR 680001.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTOOR, THRISSUR 680 702.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SYAMJI RAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.5254/2019
: 2 :
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2021
The petitioner, who is a senior citizen residing at
Kattoor, is before this Court aggrieved by the refusal of the 1st respondent to renew his Arms licence.
WP(C) No.5254/2019
: 3 :
08.06.2018.
his application for renewal of licence, was not served on him. The petitioner had to resort to the Right to Information Act to get a copy of the rejection order. Ultimately, the petitioner managed to get a copy of the order, Ext.P10, from police.
WP(C) No.5254/2019
: 4 :
Kattoor Police Station seeking a report. The District Police Chief, Thrissur, as per his report dated 28.02.2018, informed that neither the applicant nor his family has any threat. The District Police Chief further reported that the petitioner has no capacity to maintain the Arms properly as he has attained the age of 69 years.
others [ 2015 (1) KLT 41] that an application for Arms licence can be refused only on grounds stipulated in Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959.
WP(C) No.5254/2019
: 5 :
10. Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, reads as follows:-
“ Section 14: Refusal of licences
(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, licensing authority shall refuse to grant--
(a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition;
(b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,--
(i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe--
(1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or
(2) to be of unsound mind, or
(3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or
(ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence.
(2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property.
(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.”
The question arising is whether rejection of Arms licence as
per Ext.P10 is in accordance with Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959.
respondent rejected the application relying on Section 14(1)(b)
WP(C) No.5254/2019
: 6 :
(i)(3) of the Arms Act. The reason is that since the petitioner is 69 years old, he will not have the capacity to keep the Arms secure and therefore the conclusion is that the petitioner is unfit for a licence.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
Sd/-
aks/11.02.2021
WP(C) No.5254/2019
: 7 :
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COP 10.4.2015 |
Y OF TH IN WPC NO |
E JUDGMENT DATED 21608/2012 |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST |
OF THE OR RESPONDE |
DER DATED 22.5.2015 NT |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY 11.12.2017 |
OF THE |
APPLICATION DATED |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY 4500/- TOW |
OF THE CH ARDS THE |
ALN REMITTED FOR RS RENEWAL FEE |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COP 12.3.2018 |
Y OF | THE NOTICE DATED |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY | OF THE NO | TICE DATED 2.5.2018 |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY 14.2.2019 |
OF THE FROM THE |
NOTICE RECEIVED ON 2ND RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY 12.2.2019 |
OF THE UNDER RTI |
APPLICATION DATED ACT |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY 13.2.2019 |
OF ACK | NOWLEDGEMENT DATED |
| EXHIBIT P10 | TRUE COPY | OF THE OR | DER DATED 8.6.2018 |
| EXHIBIT P11 | TRUE COPY | OF THE RE | CEIPT OF DEPOSIT OF |
| THE ARMS DATED 14.2 |
FORM TH .2019 |
E LICENSED DEALER |
ncd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an Arms licence rejection order relies on valid grounds under Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Whether the licensing authority provided sufficient reasons for concluding the petitioner was unfit due to age.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandran Nair C. v. Additional District Magistrate, Kasaragod and othersExplained¶35
Chandran Nair C. v. Additional District Magistrate, Kasaragod and others [2015 (1) KLT 41]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
K.K. Ummar
The District Collector Thirssur
Sub Inspector of Police, Kattoor
N. Nagaresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
