Allowed

C.A. Jose v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Kerala HC22 Nov 2023WP(C)/4410/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition challenging the arbitrary rejection of an arms licence renewal. The court found differential treatment when another similar case was approved without prior Wild Life Warden permission. The order set aside the rejection and directed fresh consideration within two months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 order set aside; direction to 2nd respondent to reconsider petitioner's application for renewal of arms licence afresh within two months.

C.A. Jose Vs the Land Revenue… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023/1ST AGRAHAYANA,1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4410 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

C.A. JOSE
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O. ANTONY, KIDANGANADU HOUSE,
KIDANGANADU P. O., VADAKKANAD,
SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD,
PIN – 673 592.

¶8

BY ADVS.
D.KISHORE
MEERA GOPINATH
R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
ATHUL V. VADAKKEDOM

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 033.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD, PIN – 673 121.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE WAYANAD, PIN – 673 121.

¶13

4 THE DEPUTY FOREST CONSERVATOR AND WILD LIFE WARDEN SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD, PIN – 673 592.

¶14

5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER SULTAN BATHERY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD, PIN – 673 592.

¶15

SRI. BIMAL K. NATH – SR. GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.4410 OF 2023

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The application of the petitioner for renewal of Arms Licence was rejected by the 2^nd respondent by Ext.P6 stating that there is no prior permission of the Chief Wild Life Warden as per Section 34 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The petitioner contends that the rejection of his application for renewal of Arms Licence is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also refers to Ext.P11 order passed by the 2^nd respondent whereby the applicant therein has been granted renewal of Arms Licence without prior permission of the Chief Wild Life Warden. The petitioner states that the application referred to in Ext.P11 order was also residing within 10 Kms. radius of Wild Life Sanctuary, and that the petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of renewal of Arms Licence.

¶21

WP(C).No.4410 OF 2023

¶22

¶23

Sections 34(1) and 34(3) of the Wild Life

¶24

(Protection) Act, 1972 read as follows:-

¶25

“34. Registration of certain persons in possession of arms. —(1) Within three months from the declaration of any area as a sanctuary, every person residing in or within ten kilometres of any such sanctuary and holding a licence granted under the Arms Act, 1959(54 of 1959), for the possession of arms or exempted from the provisions of that Act and possessing arms, shall apply in such form, on payment of such fee and within such time as may be prescribed, to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer, for the registration of his name.

¶26

(2) xxxxx

¶27

(3) No new licences under the Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959) shall be granted within a radius of ten kilometres of a sanctuary without the prior concurrence of the Chief Wild Life Warden.”

¶28

It is to be noted that Ext.P4 is an application

¶29

for renewal and not for the issuance of a new licence. On a perusal of Ext.P11 order passed by the 2^nd respondent, I find that a differential treatment has been meted out to the petitioner herein by the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, Ext.P6 order is set aside as being arbitrary.

¶30

WP(C).No.4410 OF 2023

¶31

¶32

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 application of the petitioner for renewal of arms licence afresh and in accordance with law, with due reference to the reasoning adopted by the 2^nd respondent in Ext.P11. Fresh decision as above shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶36

SPR

¶37

WP(C).No.4410 OF 2023

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS :-

¶41

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE` `CO`	`PY` `OF` `THE` `NOTICE`
	`NO.M1/2012/`	`12535/12 DATED 03.02.2016`
	`ISSUED FRO` `RESPONDENT.`	`M THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY`	`OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED`
	`17.06.2022` `BEFORE THE`	`SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY` `17.06.2022` `FOR RENEWAL` `PETITIONER.`	`OF THE CHALLAN DATED` `EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF FEE` `OF GUN LICENCE ISSUED TO THE`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY O` `DATED 17.` `PETITIONER`	`F THE APPLICATION IN FORM A-I` `06.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE` `FOR RENEWAL OF GUN LICENCE.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY` `DATED 26.1` `RESPONDENT`	`OF THE NOTICE NO. 56813/2022` `0.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND` `TO THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY` `5089/2022-M` `RESPONDENT.`	`OF THE ORDER NO.DCWYD/` `1 DATED 06.01.2023 OF THE 2ND`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY` `6732/2022 D` `4TH RESPOND`	`OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.W3-` `ATED 11.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE` `ENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY`	`OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED`
	`17.01.2023`	`SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER`
	`BEFORE THE` `WAYANAD.`	`CHIEF WILD LIFE WARDEN,`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY` `27.01.2017` `HONOURABLE`	`OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `IN W.P.(C) 41161/2016 OF THIS` `COURT.`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY` `23.06.2015` `HONOURABLE`	`OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `IN W.P.(C) 17840/2015 OF THIS` `COURT.`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`TRUE` `COP` `DCWID/5030/`	`Y` `OF` `THE` `ORDER` `NO.` `2022-ML` `DATED` `03.11.2022`
	`ISSUED BY` `HARIDAS P.B`	`THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SRI.` `.`

¶42

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

C.A. Jose v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.A. Jose v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

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

Union Bank of India, Vs the Sub Registrar

K.R.Jose Vs the District Geologist

Rosily Jose Vs the District Geologist

Radhakrishnan K.T. Vs the Sub Registrar

M/S. Oriental Rock Products Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Director, Sajeev Mathew. Vs the Secretary

M/S. Oriental Rock Products Pvt. Ltd, Represented by Its Managing Director Sajeev Mathew Vs the Secretary, Nagalassery Grama Panchayat