Allowed

Al-Yasar Arafath, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2022WP(C)/6721/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his Arms Licence application, which was based solely on the District Superintendent of Police's report. The Court held that such an order is arbitrary and illegal, relying on its own precedent, thereby setting aside the rejection order and directing the Licensing Authority to pass an order afresh.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside the rejection order and directing the Licensing Authority (Respondents 2 and 3) to pass an order afresh on the Arms Licence application.

Al-Yasar Arafath, Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 6721 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AL-YASAR ARAFATH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.M.A. PAREED, MOOLABHAGATH, KANINADU P.O, PUTHENCRUZ, VADAVUCODE, ERNAKULAM-682 310

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.D.KISHORE SRI.MEERA GOPINATH SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA) SRI.ARYA JOSEPH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KUNNUMPURAM, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682 030.

¶12

3 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KUNNUMPURAM, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030

¶13

4 THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, MARINE DRIVE WALKWAY, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM 682 011.

¶14

5 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 542.

¶15

SRI.APPU P S, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C)No.6721/2022

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2022

¶21

The petitioner submitted an application for issuance of Arms Licence under the provisions of the Arms Act and Rules made thereunder.

¶22

The application of the petitioner has been rejected as per Ext.P2 on the ground that District Superintendent of Police has not given a favourable report. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Chandran Nair v. Additional District Magistrate [2015 (1) KLT 41], the rejection of the petitioner's application is illegal and unsustainable. Therefore, the respondents are compellable to issue Arms Licence to the petitioner.

¶23

WP(C)No.6721/2022

¶24

¶25

The learned Government Pleader entered

¶26

appearance and contested the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader controverted all the allegations made

¶27

by the petitioner in the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader argued that since there is an appellate remedy against the impugned order as provided under the Arms Act, a writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner should be relegated to avail alternate remedy.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶29

Ext.P2 order does not indicate existence of any legally sustainable grounds, for rejection. Furthermore, this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.41161 of 2016 has held that when an order has been passed by the Licensing Authority solely based on a report submitted by a District Police Chief, such an order suffers from the vice of

¶30

¶31

¶32

arbitrariness, illegality and irrationality and therefore the petitioner need not be relegated to appellate remedy.

¶33

In view of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)

¶34

No.41161 of 2016, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P2 order and directing competent among the respondents 2 and 3 to pass orders afresh on the application for Arms Licence submitted by the petitioner.

¶35

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6721/2022

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21.10.2020 FOR ARMS LICENSE SUBMITTED
	BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE
	NECESSARY DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3.
Exhibit P1(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT
	EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF LICENSE FEE.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DCEKM/9251/2020-M3 DATED 13.2.2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
	27.1.2017 IN W.P.C NO. 41161/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
	23.6.2015 IN W.P.C NO. 17840/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶42

SR //TRUE COPY//

¶43

PA TO JUDGE

Al-Yasar Arafath, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Al-Yasar Arafath, 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

Biju P. Vs Dr. Balpreeth Singh IAS

Akshay P.Aji Vs State of Kerala

Mr. Haridas C.N Vs State of Kerala

V.I.John, Vs State of Kerala

Abish Jose Vs Registrar of Companies (Roc), Ernakulam

Ajith Balan Vs State of Kerala