Allowed

Ani.M v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jul 2022WP(C)/12537/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the State Armory must release the rifle to the licensee upon submission of sale permission and custody charges, without insisting on the original deposit receipt, completing formalities after physical verification. Petitioner's writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 5th respondent to hand over the rifle to the petitioner after receipt of required documents and payment of custody charges.

Ani.M Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 12537 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

ANI.M AGED 47 YEARS S/O.K.M.KASIM, RESIDING AT GAZAL, KARAKULAM, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695564. BY ADVS. G.RANJU MOHAN M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 THE HOME SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAMKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695006. 4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686002. 5 SAMSON ARMOURY, HGXH+GMP, NAGAMPADAM, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686016. 6 JACOB KURIAN, KALARIKKAL, MUTHAMBALAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686004. BY ADVS. TOM JOSE (PADINJAREKARA) SUNNY JOSEPH(K/671/1987) K.T.SEBASTIAN(K/1079/2001)

¶9

OTHER PRESENT:

¶10

GP RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

W.P.(C) No.12537 of 2022

¶13

-2-

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 21^st day of July, 2022

¶16

The petitioner is a sports shooter and a member of the Kottayam District Rifle

¶17

Association. The petitioner is holding an arms licence from 2009 onwards, which is valid up to 20.06.2026. When the petitioner came to know that the 6^th respondent was desirous of selling his . 22 Bore LR Rifle, he negotiated with the 6^th respondent and finalised purchase of the rifle. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before the third respondent and obtained Ext.P3 additional firearm letter, permitting the 6^th respondent to sell his rifle to the petitioner. After obtaining Ext.P3, petitioner purchased the rifle from the 6^th respondent and approached the 5^th respondent, in whose armory the rifle was deposited.

¶18

W.P.(C) No.12537 of 2022

¶19

-3-

¶20

Surprisingly, the 5^th respondent refused to handover the weapon raising untenable objections. Thereupon the petitioner approached the 4^th respondent and obtained Ext.P5 letter which is to the effect that, for releasing the firearm from the armory, the petitioner should obtain an order from the third respondent, endorsing the firearm in Ext.P1 licence. Accordingly, petitioner approached the third respondent and submitted Ext.P6 request. In response to the request Ext.P7 letter was issued, expressing inability to endorse the firearm in Ext.P1 licence without conducting physical verification of the rifle. The third respondent also requested the fourth respondent to review Ext.P5 order and directed the 5^th respondent to handover the rifle to the petitioner, for producing it for inspection. Petitioner is aggrieved by the fourth respondent's refusal to review Ext.P5 order and the insistence on getting the firearm endorsed in

¶21

W.P.(C) No.12537 of 2022

¶22

Ext.P1 licence for getting it released from the

¶23

petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.23089 of 2021. Therein, the 5^th

¶24

respondent filed a counter affidavit expressing willingness to handover the rifle on production of required documents and payment of custody charges. While so, the petitioner received Ext.P11 letter issued from the office of the second respondent, stating that the petitioner is being given an open licence endorsed with the firearm and after receiving the same, he should collect the firearm from the armory and produce it for physical verification within six months of receipt of the licence. The petitioner is also required to produce the firearm before the Taluk office and police station concerned. Presently, the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that he was not issued with any communication regarding grant of open licence and is issued with Ext.P12

¶25

W.P.(C) No.12537 of 2022

¶26

-5-

¶27

notice reiterating the stand in Ext.P5 letter. The writ petition is hence filed seeking the following reliefs;

¶28

“1) To issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents 4 and 5 to immediately release the non-prohibited .22 Bore Rifle No.103506 to the petitioner within a time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶29

2) To declare that the petitioner being an Arms License holder and a bonafide purchaser of a non-prohibited fire arm is entitled to custody, carry and transport the said fire arm for the purpose of getting it endorsed in his license from the lincese issuing authority.”

¶30

Heard, Adv.Ranju Mohan appearing for the petitioner, Government Pleader Rajeev Jyothish George for the official respondents and Adv.Tom Jose Padinjarekara for the 5^th respondent. Since there is no dispute as to the sale of the 6^th respondent's weapon to the petitioner, notice to

¶31

the 6^th respondent is dispensed with.

¶32

Learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶33

W.P.(C) No.12537 of 2022

¶34

-6-

¶35

contended that in the light of Ext.P3 letter, the 5^th respondent is bound to release the rifle deposited by the 6^th respondent without raising any objection. Relying on Section 5 of the Arms Act, 1959, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to possess the additional firearm, since he holds a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Drawing attention to Section 5(2), it is contended that even a person without a licence is entitled to sell or transfer any arm, which he lawfully possesses for his private use, to another person, who, by virtue of the Act is not prohibited from having such arm in his possession. Reference is also made to Rule 47(2) providing for sale of arms or ammunition by the licensee to any person lawfully entitled to possess the same. It is hence contended that, having been issued with Exhibit P3 permitting sale of the rifle by the 6^th respondent to the petitioner, the official

¶36

W.P.(C) No.12537 of 2022

¶37

-7-

¶38

respondents ought to have compelled the fifth respondent to hand over the rifle to the

¶39

petitioner and completed the legal formalities.

¶40

Learned Counsel for 5^th respondent contended that his client is aware about the sale of the .22 Bore rifle by the 6^th respondent to the petitioner and has no objection in handing over the rifle to the petitioner, provided he produces the deposit receipt and other necessary documents. Further, the petitioner is also bound to pay the charges for keeping custody of the rifle in the armory.

¶41

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having carefully scrutinised the statutory provisions and documents, I find the petitioner's claim for release of the rifle from the 5^th respondent's custody to be well founded. At the same time, the petitioner is bound to produce the documents for identification and copy of Exhibit P3 order before the 5^th respondent and

¶42

W.P.(C) No.12537 of 2022

¶43

-8-

¶44

to pay the custody charges. On the petitioner complying with the above requirements, the 5^th respondent shall hand over the rifle to the petitioner, without insisting for production of the original deposit receipt. The official respondents shall complete the legal formalities after production of the rifle for

¶45

inspection/verification.

¶46

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/

W.P.(C) No.12537 of 2022

¶51

-9-

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12537/2022

¶53

PETITIO	NER EXHI	BITS
Exhibit	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ARMS LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE 'ADDITION OF FIRE ARM LETTER' ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.08.2020.
Exhibit	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE PERMISSION LETTER ISSUED TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 22/02/2021.
Exhibit	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.07.2021.
Exhibit	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (DCKTM/8597/2020-H2) DATED 06.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED NIL
Exhibit	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (A 8/356241/2021) DATED 08/11/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.09.2021.
Exhibit	P9	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.23089/2021 DATED 03.02.2022.
Exhibit	P10	TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.23089/2021.
Exhibit	P11	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F1/208/2021/HOME DATED 16/12/2021
Exhibit	P12	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT OFFICE.

Ani.M v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ani.M 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahul Hameed, Vs the Kerala Water Authority

P.v.Muhamood Haji Vs Divisional Forest Officer

Mr. Ashique Ponnamparambath Vs Bmw India Financial Services Private Limited

Abdul Samad N.M Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Reena Chandra Vs the Director

P.J.Kochumon Vs State of Kerala