Dismissed

Printo P T v. Haritha v Kumr, IAS

Kerala HC11 Oct 2022Con.Case(C)/1681/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Goa bench considered a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with previous directions to reconsider arms license applications. The court found that the delay was not willful and dismissed the contempt petition while reserving the petitioner's right to challenge license rejection separately.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition is closed; petitioner directed to file affidavit explaining reasons for delay.

Printo P T Vs Haritha v Kumr, IAS — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

Con. Case (C) No. 1681 of 2022

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶8

TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 19TH ASWINA, 1944 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1681 OF 2022

¶9

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 37989/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶10

PETITIONER/S:

¶11

PRINTO P T AGED 45 YEARS

¶12

S/O. THOMAS, PANAMKULATHUKARAN HOUSE, CHENGALLUR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680312

¶13

BY ADVS. SAJI KURIACHAN M.R.NANDAKUMAR ROY P.KURIAKOSE

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

HARITHA V KUMR, IAS THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001

¶16

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Con. Case (C) No. 1681 of 2022

-2-

J U D G M E N T

S. Manikumar, C. J.

Considering the averments made in Con. Case (C) No. 1681 of 2022, on 15.09.2022, we passed the following order:-

¶22

“Alleging willful disobedience of the judgment in W.P(C). No.37989 of 2015 dated 15.2.2022, instant Contempt Case is filed.

¶23

Earlier, adverting to the rival contentions as regards grant/refusal of the Arms licence, taking into consideration the requirements under Sections 13(3) (b), 14 and 15 of the Arms Act, 1959 and after considering the statutory provisions, vide judgment dated 15.2.2022 in W.P(C).37989 of 2015 and connected cases, we ordered thus:

¶24

“24. Therefore, we are of the view that instead of sending it back to the writ court, the respective impugned orders in the writ petitions passed by the statutory/appellate authorities can be set aside and the applications can be directed to be reconsidered, bearing in mind the findings and observations contained as above.

¶25

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders i.e., Ext. P5 order dated 30.10.2015, Ext.P3 order dated 12.11.2014, Ext. P7 order dated 29.10.2015, Ext. P4 order of the District Collector, Kannur, Ext. P6 order dated 09/2015, Ext.P3 order dated 30.12.2015, Ext. P6 order dated 29.11.2014, Ext. P3 order dated 17.07.2014, Ext. P4 order dated 11.12.2015, Ext. P3 order dated 29.12.2015 and Ext. P20 Government Order dated 30.01.2016 respectively

¶26

Con. Case (C) No. 1681 of 2022

¶27

-3-

¶28

in the sequence of the captioned writ petitions and any consequential orders passed on remand by the appellate authority, and direct the primary authority under the Arms Act, 1959 to reconsider all the applications taking into account the findings and observations contained above, at the earliest and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶29

The writ petitions are disposed of as above.”

¶30

On this day, when the matter came up for admission, on instructions Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that a detailed report of District Police Chief, Thrissur was received only on 5.9.2022. There is no willful or intentional disobedience of the directions in the judgment. According to him, an opportunity of hearing has to be provided before taking appropriate decision. In such circumstances, some more time is required for compliance of the directions in the judgment.

¶31

Post the matter on 10.10.2022. Learned Senior Government Pleader is directed to file an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay.”

¶32

On the basis of an affidavit dated 07.10.2022 and Annexure R1(a) order dated 19.09.2022 of the District Collector, Thrissur, the respondent, Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that the directions contained in W. P. (C) No. 37989 of 2015 dated 15.02.2022 have been complied with, and therefore, prayed for

¶33

Con. Case (C) No. 1681 of 2022

¶34

-4-

¶35

dismissal of the contempt petition.

¶36

Paragraph Nos. 2 to 4 of the affidavit dated 07.10.2022 filed

¶37

by the District Collector, Thrissur, the respondent, reads thus:-

¶38

“2. It is submitted that the above contempt case is filed aggrieved by the non-compliance of Annexure-A Judgment dated 15.02.2022 in WP(C) No.37989/2015. As per the afore judgment, the question that was considered is as to whether grant/refusal of fire arm license can only be based on grounds enumerated u/S 14 and 15 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter as the Act 1959). This Honourable Court was pleased to dispose of the WP(C)No.37989/2015 along with connected matters by answering the reference as follows.

¶39

“For the consideration of applications for licenses under Section 14 and Section 15 of Act 1959, the provisions of Section 13(3)(b) can be relied upon for assimilating any "good reason" in order to grant, renew or refuse the licenses, however, except under the circumstances mentioned under Section 13(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of act, 1959. Thus to say, the licenses dealt with under Section 13(3)(a)(i) and (ii) are classified as a district one so as not to attract the requirement of ‘good reason' envisaged in Section 13(3)(b), which this also means, other than the specific circumstances made under Section 13(3)(a)(i) and (ii), in all other cases discussed above, for consideration of applications for grant of license and renewal, the provisions of Section 13(3)(b) would apply."

¶40

Thereafter, the impugned orders in the Writ Petitions were set aside and directed the primary authority under the Arms Act, 1959 to reconsider all the applications taking into account

¶41

Con. Case (C) No. 1681 of 2022

¶42

-5-

¶43

the findings rendered in the judgment at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment after providing an opportunity of hearing the petitioners. It is submitted that upon receipt of the applications as evidenced by Annexure-B and in obedience to the directions contained in the Annexure-A judgment, reports were sought from the District Police Chief, Thrissur, Divisional Forest Officer, Thrissur and Tahsildar, Thrissur, Mukundapuram. Though report of the Tahsildar, Mukundapuram was obtained as per letter dated 29.07.2022, the report from the District Police Chief was obtained only on 05.09.2022. The delay in consideration of the application for license has occurred under the above circumstances and the same is neither willful nor deliberate. The inconvenience caused to this Honourable Court may kindly be condoned.

¶44

It is submitted that application for renewal of license of the petitioner was considered after hearing the petitioner. As per order dated 19.09.2022, the application was rejected based on the reasons enumerated in the order.”

¶45

By inviting the attention of this Court to paragraph 25 of the

¶46

judgment in W. P. (C) No. 37989 of 2015 dated 15.02.2022, and also the reasons for declining arms license in Annexure R1(a) order dated 19.09.2022 of the District Collector, Thrissur, the respondent, Mr. Saji Kuriachan, learned counsel for the contempt petitioner, submitted that there is intentional violation of the directions issued.

¶47

Con. Case (C) No. 1681 of 2022

¶48

-6-

¶49

We have gone through the reasons assigned in the affidavit dated 07.10.2022 and Annexure R1(a) order dated 19.09.2022 of the District Collector, Thrissur, the respondent, and of the view that the directions issued in W. P. (C) No. 37989 of 2015 dated 15.02.2022, have been complied with. There is no willful or intentional disobedience to the directions issued.

¶50

However, if the contempt petitioner is aggrieved over the manner in which the District Collector, Thrissur, the respondent, has rejected the request for arms license, it is always open to him to challenge the same, in accordance with law.

¶51

Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed.

¶52

Sd/S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶53

Sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶54

///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE

¶55

¶56

Con. Case (C) No. 1681 of 2022

¶57

-7-

¶58

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1681/2022

¶59

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶60

Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C) NO. 37989/2015 DATED 15/02/2022

¶61

Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 19/03/2022 TO THE PETITIONER

¶62

Annexure B(1) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE B

¶63

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

¶64

Annexure R(1) a A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2022

Printo P T v. Haritha v Kumr, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Printo P T v. Haritha v Kumr, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jemeen Sreedharan Vs Edava Grama Panchayath

K.Somasekharan Nair Vs the Secretary

Abdul Nasir C.I Vs the Project Director

Sreedevi Amma M Vs the Hdb Financial Services

Rinu Sreejaya Aswan @ Rinu S Aswan Vs Union of India

Kerala State Co-Operative Employees Pension Board Vs Elizabeth