Partly allowed

Yakoob N.K. v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Kerala HC5 Jun 2024WP(C)/163/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Renewal of a gun licence was refused citing left-wing extremist presence in the area and the applicant's lack of need for a gun. The court found both reasons unsustainable, noting other licences were renewed in the same area, set aside the rejection orders and directed fresh consideration of the renewal application.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P2 and P3 orders set aside; 2nd respondent directed to reconsider renewal application dated 04.10.2017 excluding both reasons within two months, renewing w.e.f. order date if granted.

Yakoob N.K. Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner — Kerala HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 163 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

YAKOOB N.K.,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.ABU HAJI N.K., KALKUNDU,
KARUVARAKUNDU P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 523.
BY ADVS.
P.SAMSUDIN
SRI.M.ANUROOP

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶9

2 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

¶10

3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

¶11

4 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI. BIMAL K NATH- SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 163 OF 2021

¶16

¶17

M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.

¶18

------------------------------

¶19

W.P.(C) No. 163 of 2021

¶20

------------------------------

¶21

Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2024

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner obtained Ext.P1 license dated 09.09.2010 for possession of a gun which was valid upto 30.09.2017. Ext.P1 license was renewed on 09.06.2015 for the period upto 30.09.2017. The petitioner submitted application dated 04.10.2017 for renewal of Ext.P1 license. The said application was rejected by the 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P2 order dated 18.11.2021.

¶24

Even though, the application was for renewal, it is stated in Ext.P2 that the license is cancelled. Since the application was only for renewal, I construe Ext.P2 as an order rejecting the renewal of application. The reason stated in Ext.P2 is that there is presence of left wing extreme Maoist cadre persons in the area where the petitioner has been residing and that there is chance of

¶25

¶26

WP(C) NO. 163 OF 2021

¶27

those persons misusing the gun after obtaining possession of the same from the petitioner .

¶28

The petitioner filed appeal before the 1^st respondent which was rejected as per Ext.P3 order dated 16.10.2020. In Ext.P3, an additional reason is also stated for denial that the applicant is not in need of a gun.

¶29

According to the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent has renewed gun license of other persons in that area. Ext.P4 is one of such renewals. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in Chandran Nair C. Vs. Additional District Magistrate, Kasaragod and Others, [2015 (1) KHC

¶30

351] , in which, it is held that an application for license or for renewal of license under the Act is submitted, the applicant need not establish that there exists threat to the life, to get license applied for or to get the existing license renewed.

¶31

The 2^nd respondent has filed counter affidavit supporting the reasons in Exts.P2 & P3 orders.

¶32

¶33

WP(C) NO. 163 OF 2021

¶34

I heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶35

Now, two reasons are before me objecting renewal of Ext.P1 license to the petitioner. All other factors are in favour of the petitioner. The first reason is that presence of left wing extremist Maoist in the area. It is seen from Ext.P1 that Ext.P1 license was renewed on 09.06.2015. The present application for renewal was submitted on 04.10.2017. There would not be much difference in the change of the circumstances within a period of two years. That apart, Ext.P4 supports the contention of the petitioner that gun license of others are renewed in the very same area. Ext.P4 is renewed on 21.07.2019 to 31.07.2021 with respect to a person residing within the local limits of Karuvarakundu Police Station itself. It is renewed by the 2^nd respondent himself. Hence, I find that the first reason for rejecting the renewal is unsustainable. With respect to the second reason that the petitioner is not in requirement of the gun. Such reason does not find a place in Ext.P2 order

¶36

¶37

WP(C) NO. 163 OF 2021

¶38

by which the application for renewal was rejected. It is seen supplemented in Ext.P3 appellate order. In view of

¶39

the aforesaid decision in Chandran Nair supra cited by the Counsel for the petitioner, the said reason is also not sustainable.

¶40

Accordingly, I set aside Exts.P2 &P3 orders and direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the application for renewal dated 04.10.2017 submitted by the petitioner for renewal of Ext.P1 license without reference to the aforesaid two reasons within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment taking note of the relevant factors as available now. If the license is renewed, the license shall be renewed w.e.f. the date of order in continuation of Ext.P1 License. If required, the petitioner shall pay the renewal fee for each renewal till this date and for future.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, JUDGE

¶43

S.M.K.

¶44

WP(C) NO. 163 OF 2021

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 163/2021

¶47

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶48

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF` `PETITIONER.`	`THE ARMS LICENSE NO.192/NBR OF`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF` `ISSUED BY THE`	`THE ORDER DATED 18/11/2019` `1ST RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 18/10/20` `COMMISSIONER.`	`THE ORDER L.R.(A) 5-4249/20` `20 ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF` `THE DISTRICT M`	`A GUN LICENSE RENEWED ON BY` `AGISTRATE DATED 21/07/2019.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE` `COPY` `NO.16109/F1/15`	`OF` `THE` `CIRCULAR` `/HOME DATED 09/03/2015.`

¶49

2^nd RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS

¶50

EXHIBIT R2(A)A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO D2(B)-
42555/2018/MM DATED 21-08-2018

Yakoob N.K. v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yakoob N.K. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sadasivan Vs State of Kerala

P.N.Eswaran Vs the Secretary, Manjoor Grama Panchayat

R.Thulasi Vs State of Kerala

P.a.Kabeer Vs the Chairman

K.C.Babu Vs State of Kerala

M.S. Viswanathan Vs the District Collector