Disposed

Usman.P. v. Land Revenue Commissioner

Kerala HC15 Feb 2024WP(C)/17556/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A gun licence holder whose criminal case was quashed by this Court was denied licence renewal on the basis of a District Police Chief report citing those very proceedings. Holding reliance on quashed proceedings illegal and unsustainable, the High Court set aside the cancellation and appellate rejection orders.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P6 and P7 orders cancelling/rejecting the arms licence application were set aside.

Usman.P. Vs Land Revenue Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024/ 26TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 17556 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

USMAN.P.
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED,
PANGINIKKADAN HOUSE KADANNAMANNA,
MANKADA MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679 324.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SAJI KURIACHAN
ROY P.KURIAKOSE
M.R.NANDAKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 033.

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CIVIL STATION.P.O. MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 505.

¶13

3 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CIVIL STATION.P.O. MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 505.

¶14

BY ADV

¶15

K.M.FAIZAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C) No.17556 of 2023

¶18

: 2 :

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2024

¶21

The petitioner, who is a licensee of a Gun Licence, has approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P7 orders and seeking to direct the respondents to renew the Arms Licence issued to the petitioner within a time schedule.

¶22

The petitioner states that the petitioner was holding an Arms Licence and the said Arms Licence was cancelled on the basis of a criminal case. The petitioner approached this Court challenging the criminal proceedings. This Court as per Ext.P2 judgment quashed the criminal proceedings.

¶23

However, in spite of that, the petitioner's application for Arms Licence stands rejected as per Ext.P6 proceedings dated 06.02.2023 of the 3^rd

¶24

respondent-Additional District Magistrate.

¶25

W.P.(C) No.17556 of 2023

¶26

: 3 :

¶27

respondent-Additional District Magistrate has relied on a report of the District Police Chief for rejecting the application. The District Police Chief had relied on the criminal proceedings which stands quashed as per Ext.P2 judgment of this Court. Aggrieved by Ext.P6, the petitioner filed appeal. The Appellate Authority considered the matter and unfortunately, without noting the impact of Ext.P2 judgment of this Court, upheld the order of the District Magistrate. It is aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P7 orders that the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader denied all the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the petitioner was heard in the matter. The petitioner is claiming that the injury was caused to his son by the use of fire arm. It was an accidental result of the weapon misfiring and FIR was subsequently quashed. The District

¶29

W.P.(C) No.17556 of 2023

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

Police Chief however reported that the misuse of weapon calls for an immediate cancellation.

¶32

The Government Pleader submitted that at the

¶33

time of accident, it was the appellant who had used the weapon. The District Police Chief has reported that similar incidents can happen in future also. It was in the circumstances, that the licence was cancelled.

¶34

It is further pointed out by the Government Pleader that the licensing authority’s decision to deny licence is in accordance with the Arms Act, 1959. Section 14(1)(b)(i) (3) and Section 14(1)(b)(ii) provide sufficient and valid grounds for cancellation of the licence. On those grounds the licence has been cancelled. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

¶35

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶36

The application of the petitioner for Arms Licence

¶37

stands cancelled by Ext.P6 order of the 3^rd

¶38

W.P.(C) No.17556 of 2023

¶39

: 5 :

¶40

respondent-Additional District Magistrate. In order to cancel the licence, the 3^rd respondent-Additional District Magistrate has relied on a report of the District Police Chief. The District Police Chief reported that there was a crime registered against the petitioner in respect of an offence connected to the usage of the gun by the petitioner. The petitioner had carelessly used the gun, which was the background of the criminal case. The District Police Chief reported that unless the licence is cancelled, the petitioner is likely to use the gun again carelessly. Based on the report of the District Police Chief, the 3^rd respondent-Additional District Magistrate has cancelled the Arms Licence of the petitioner. The statutory appeal filed against Ext.P6 order also stands rejected by Ext.P7 order passed by the 1^st respondent-Land Revenue Commissioner. The 1^st respondent-Land Revenue Commissioner has also relied on the report given by the District Police Chief.

¶41

Challenging the registration of crime, the petitioner had approached this Court invoking Section 482 of the Code

¶42

W.P.(C) No.17556 of 2023

¶43

: 6 :

¶44

of Criminal Procedure and this Court as per Ext.P2 judgment dated 08.12.2021 had quashed the Criminal Procedure. When the criminal proceedings stands quashed by the judgment of this Court, it would be illegal and unsustainable for the respondents to place their decision on the very same case. In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to relief.

¶45

The writ petition is therefore disposed of setting

¶46

aside Exts.P6 and P7 orders.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶49

AMR

¶50

W.P.(C) No.17556 of 2023

¶51

: 7 :

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17556/2023

¶53

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶54

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
LICENSE BOOK GRANTING ARMS LICENSE IN
FORM ILL ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
THAT IS VALID UPTO 24-04-2025.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08-12-
2021 PASSED IN CRL.M.C. NO.5366/2021
BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE TRAINING CERTIFICATE
DATED 28-08-2022.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25-03-
2023 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF
MANKADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE NON-INVOLVEMENT IN
OFFENCES CERTIFICATE DATED 21-03-2023.
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06-02-
2023 BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15-05-2023.
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-10-
2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.24416 OF 2022.
Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT DATED
15RO2-2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. 35111/2015
AND CONNECTED CASES OF THIS COURT
REPORTED IN 2022 (2) KHC 170 (DB).

¶55

Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF THE MANGADA GRAMA
PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE DECISION DATED
14.10.2022.

Usman.P. v. Land Revenue Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usman.P. v. 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

Riyas Kallumpurath Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Samjith Rajan Vs PNB Housing Finance Ltd.

V.P.Mohammed Ashraf Vs the District Magistrate

Mathilakathuveettil Rafeeque@Mohammadrafic M.B, Vs Chief Passport Officer

Sreekala R Vs Authorised Officer

T.P. Subair Vs Chief Manager