Disposed

K.J.Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jan 2021WP(C)/97/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the District Magistrate to decide the petitioner's application for renewing his firearms license within two months. The court relied on precedents regarding gun license renewal and noted the significant delay by the authorities despite the petitioner holding a license since 1985.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd respondent (District Magistrate) is directed to pass orders on the renewal application within two months of receiving a copy of this judgment.

K.J.Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

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

¶5

WP(C).No.97 OF 2021(J)

PETITIONER:

K.J.MATHEW

AGED 81 YEARS

S/O. JOSEPH, KAINIKKAL HOUSE, KIDANGANADU P.O, VADAKKANAD, SULTHAN BATHERY

¶10

WYANAD DISTRICT 673 592

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MEERA GOPINATH

¶13

SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (G) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶17

2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,

¶18

OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033

¶19

3 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WYNAD 673 121

¶20

4 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, SULTAN BATHERY, WYANAD 673 592

¶21

5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WYANAD 673 121

¶22

6 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WYANAD 673 592

¶23

OTHER PRESENT:

¶24

SMT.PRINCY XAVIER,GP

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(C).No.97 OF 2021(J)

¶27

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Petitioner is aggrieved by the delay in passing

¶30

orders on his application for renewal of licence for possession of fire arms. It is stated that the second respondent had already remanded the matter after considering the appeal submitted by the petitioner as against the rejection of the application for renewal of licence by the 3^rd respondent. Even though Ext.P3 order remitting the matter to the 3^rd respondent was issued as early as on 14.06.2017, so far no orders are passed. Even though the matter was considered in the Adalath, as per Ext.P4 letter dated 02.11.2020 the 3^rd respondent has informed the petitioner that final orders could not be passed since petitioner did not produce further evidence relating to the incidents affecting threat to the life and property of the petitioner.

¶31

The contention of the petitioner is that

¶32

W.P.(C).No.97 OF 2021(J)

¶33

¶34

for issuing orders on application for renewal of licence it is not necessary that petitioner should produce evidence relating to the threat to his life and property as he was already having the licence since the year 1985 and it was being renewed. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Chandran Nair v. Additional District Magistrate, Kasargode [2015 (1) KHC 351], learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is no justifiable reason for denying renewal of licence to the petitioner.

¶35

It is seen that Ext.P3 order was passed by the second respondent as early as in June 2017 and so far 3^rd respondent has not passed any orders on the renewal application despite the fact that the petitioner was granted licence in the year 1985 and it was being renewed since then and an application for renewal was submitted as early as in January 2012. Therefore there shall be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to pass orders within a period of 'two

¶36

W.P.(C).No.97 OF 2021(J)

¶37

¶38

months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, taking note of the judgments of this Court in Chandran Nair v. Additional District Magistrate, Kasargode [2015 (1) KHC 351], C.P.Raman Nair v. Additional District Magistrate, Kasargode and

¶39

others [AIR 1968 Kerala 65] etc.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶41

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C).No.97 OF 2021(J)

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11-06-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(GENERAL) WYANAD

¶48

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M1/2012/612/12 DATED 11-09-2012 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶49

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. LR(A5) 51092/12 DATED 14-06-2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶50

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 2-11-2020 OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL) ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

K.J.Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.J.Mathew 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

Cases cited

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

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