Allowed

Marakkar.N., v. the Additional Chief Secretary to the Home Department

Kerala HC6 Jun 2024WP(C)/20718/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the rejection order denying the petitioner's application for renewal of an Arms License as a legal heir. Relying on Chandran Nair, the Court held that proving an imminent threat is not a requirement for renewal, directing reconsideration without reference to such threat.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P1 order set aside and the second respondent directed to reconsider the application for renewal of Arms License within three months, disregarding the 'no imminent threat' factor.

Marakkar.N., Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to the Home… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 20718 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

MARAKKAR.N., AGED 66 YEARS S/O.KUNJAYAMMU HAJI, NAMBIYAKATH HOUSE, POMBRA P.O., KARAKKURUSSI, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 595.

¶8

BY ADV P.SAMSUDIN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION COMPLEX, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF PALAKKAD, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SMT.K.B.SONY-GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.06.2024,

¶16

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C)NO.20718 of 2021

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order, by which, his application for renewal of Arms License in the capacity of legal heir of his deceased brother Sri.N.Vappu was denied on the ground that the petitioner is not facing any imminent threat.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that his father had an Arms License and gun; that on the death of his father, the license and gun was transferred to the name of his brother Sri.N.Vappu, who died in the year 2007; that the petitioner filed Application for renewal of Arms License for possessing the gun which had been in the possession of his father and brother and it was illegally rejected by Ext.P1 Order dated 14/09/2021.

¶22

Ext.P1 shows that the Divisional Forest Officer recommended the application for granting License and that the District Police Chief, Palakkad reported that the

¶23

W.P.(C)NO.20718 of 2021

¶24

¶25

petitioner is capable of handling weapon, character and antecedents are good and no crime is pending against him, but the very same Police Verification Report reported that the petitioner is not facing any imminent threat. It is considering this Police Verification Report the renewal of the Arms license was rejected.

¶26

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the reasons stated in Ext.P1 for rejecting renewal of the Arms License is illegal and unsustainable in view of the decision in Chandran Nair C. v. Additional District Magistrate, Kasaragod and Ors. [2015 (1) KHC 351]. In the said decision, this Court directed renewal of Arms License holding that the subjective satisfaction of the authorities under the Act there is no threat to the life and property of the applicant may or may not be correct; that when the applicant feels that there is threat to his life and property, there is no reason for the State to risk his life and property; and that an Applicant for license or renewal of license under the Act need establish that there exists threat to the life or property to get the license applied for or get the existing license renewed.

¶27

W.P.(C)NO.20718 of 2021

¶28

¶29

In view of the above said decision, the reason stated in Ext.P1 for rejection of the Arms License that the petitioner is not facing imminent threat is unsustainable. It is not a relevant factor for considering the Application for renewal of Arms License.

¶30

Accordingly, Ext.P1 order is set aside and the second respondent is directed to reconsider the Application for renewal of Arms License submitted by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date receipt of copy of this judgment, without reference to the threat for the life or property of the petitioner and considering other relevant factors as available now.

¶31

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd-

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

JUDGE

Shg

W.P.(C)NO.20718 of 2021

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20718/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS (DCPKD.6365/2019-D2) DATED 14.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.16109/F1/15/HOME DATED 09.03.2015.

Marakkar.N., v. the Additional Chief Secretary to the Home Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marakkar.N., v. the Additional Chief Secretary to the Home Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yakoob N.K. Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner

P.a.Kabeer Vs the Chairman

K.C.Babu Vs State of Kerala

E.Sukumaran Vs Vazhayurgrama Panchayat

P.S.Saiju Vs Hindustan Newsprint Ltd.

N.P Shanil Vs the Kuthiathodu Rural Housing Co-Operative Soceity Limited