Remanded

Thomas George v. the District Magistrate

Kerala HC5 Dec 2022WP(C)/31662/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the non-renewal of a gun licence after the two-year production period. The court directed the respondent to consider a Supreme Court order extending the limitation and obtain necessary reports to decide whether to continue the licence.

What did the court decide?

Directs the respondent to obtain reports and take a decision within two months regarding the continuation of the licence, considering the Supreme Court's extension of limitation.

Thomas George Vs the District Magistrate — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 W.P.(C) NO.31662 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

THOMAS GEORGE, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. LATE MR.E.D.VARKEY, HOUSE NO.11/434, HILL VIEW ENCLAVE, KALLEPPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678 005.

¶7

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

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001

¶10

SRI. P.S. APPU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

W.P.(C) NO.31662 OF 2022

¶13

-2-

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2022

¶16

The petitioner applied for a gun licence, which the respondent sanctioned as per Ext.R1(a) dated 29.07.2019. The requirement under Rule 18 of the Arms Rules is for the licencee to produce the gun for which the licence is granted within two years of issuance of licence. According to the petitioner, he purchased the gun immediately after Ext.R1(a) and intimated that fact to the respondent vide Ext.P5 communication dated 14.08.2019. The petitioner also requested for an opportunity to produce the gun for verification. Much after, receiving the request, the petitioner was issued Ext.P3 finding fault with him for not having produced the gun for endorsement/verification within the stipulated time frame. The petitioner replied immediately, pointing out that, all through out, he had been attempting to produce the gun for endorsement/verification, but no positive reply was given

¶17

-3-

¶18

W.P.(C) NO.31662 OF 2022

¶19

by the respondent. Thereupon, an enquiry was conducted after issuing Ext.P7 notice. No orders having been passed thereafter, this writ petition is filed.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the petitioner asserted that after submitting Ext.P5 request, the petitioner had made repeated attempts to produce the gun for verification. It is submitted that expiry of the two years period stipulated in Rule 18 is not due to the petitioner's fault. Moreover, by virtue of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per the order in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Suo motu W.P.(C) No.3/2020), the time limit prescribed under Rule 18 got extended.

¶21

Learned Government Pleader submitted that, other than sending Ext.P5 communication, nothing further was done by the petitioner. Being so, licence granted as per Ext.R1(a) expired after two years.

¶22

In my opinion, having conducted an enquiry, the respondent is bound to take a decision in the matter. While taking such decision, the respondent should advert to the

¶23

-4-

¶24

W.P.(C) NO.31662 OF 2022

¶25

order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation . If the petitioner is found to be entitled for the benefit of Supreme Court order, reports

¶26

shall be obtained from other statutory authorities, so as to decide whether to continue the licence. The decision, as directed above, shall be taken within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶27

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶28

Sd/- V.G. ARUN JUDGE

¶29

bpr

¶30

-5-

¶31

W.P.(C) NO.31662 OF 2022

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31662/2022

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GUN LICENCE NO.976/PGT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXHIBIT P2 APPLICATION DATED 08-04-2022 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶36

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26-07-2022.

¶37

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12-08-2022 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶38

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14-8-2019 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶39

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED 17-08-2019 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT.

¶40

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 30-06-2022.

¶41

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶42

EXHIBIT R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.DCPKD/9310/2018/D2 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD.

Thomas George v. the District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas George v. the District Magistrate

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

Sujanapal A.K Vs State of Kerala

Sujanapal A.K Vs State of Kerala

Cee Jee Lubricants Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Mujeeb Rahman Vs the Nilambur Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

K.Abdul Latheef Vs the District Registrar(General)

Rajesh V.R Vs Kerala Water Authority