Purushothaman vs Additional District Magistrate

Kerala High Court

Purushothaman vs Additional District Magistrate on 20 May, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
        MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 38329 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:

            PURUSHOTHAMAN
            AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, PALERI HOUSE, CHERUPUZHA
            P.O., TALIPARAMBA KANNUR.

            BY ADV SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)



RESPONDENT/S:

    1       ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
            KANNUR.

    2       THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
            KANNUR.

    3       THE TAHSILDAR
            TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR.


OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI. VENUGOPAL V (GP)




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No.38329/2016                   -2-

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this court challenging Ext.P5 order through which his application for renewal of Arms licence under the provisions of the Arms Act and the Rules framed thereunder has been rejected by the 1st respondent.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit with reference to Ext.P5 order will shows that the 1st respondent had proceeded solely on the basis of a report of the District Police Chief that the petitioner is not facing threat from anyone and there is no need for an Arms licence for self protection in the light of the prevailing law and order situation.

It is submitted that the only other reason mentioned is that there is presence of Maoists in the area and chances of misuse of fire arms cannot be ruled out.

It is submitted that in Chandran Nair v. Additional District Magistrate; 2015 (1) KLT 41 this court held that a combined reading of Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Arms Act, 1959 indicate that unless there are grounds for refusal of licence under Section 14 an Arms licence once granted shall be renewed from time to time. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 1 st respondent is the submission. He also points out that the law laid down by this court in Chandran Nair (supra) has been followed by this court in Sebastian Kuruvila v. Land Revenue Commissioner; 2023 KHC OnLine 9449.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also. The learned Government Pleader does not dispute the legal position as laid down in Chandran Nair (supra) and in Sebastian Kuruvila (supra).

4. In Chandran Nair (supra) this court held as follows;

"5. Section 15 of the Act dealing with renewal of licence reads as follows:

15. Duration and renewal of licence - (1) A licence under section 3 shall, unless revoked earlier, continue in force for a period of three years from the date on which it is granted:

Provided that such a licence may be granted for a shorter period if the person by whom the licence is required so desires or if the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing considers in any case that the licence should be granted for a shorter period.

(2) A licence under any other provision of Chapter II shall, unless revoked earlier, continue in force for such period from the date on which it is granted as the licensing authority may in each case determine.

(3) Every licence shall, unless the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise decides in any case, be renewable for the same period for which the licence was originally granted and shall be so renewable from time to time, and the provisions of sections 13 and 14 shall apply to the renewal of a licence as they apply to the grant thereof."

It is settled that applications for grant as also renewal of licences under the Act are to be considered in accordance with the terms of the statute. Unlike section 14 of the Act, Section 15 of the Act dealing with renewal of the licence does not enumerate any specific grounds for refusal. On the other hand, Section 15 of the Act categorically provides that every licence shall, unless the W.P (C) No.38329/2016 -4- licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise decides in any case, be renewable for the same period for which the licence was originally granted and shall be so renewable from time to time, and the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 shall apply to the renewal of a licence as they apply to the grant thereof. A combined reading of Sections 14 and 15 of the Act would indicate that once a licence is granted under the Act, the same shall be renewed from time to time, unless there exists a ground for refusal as enumerated under Section 14 of the Act. In other words, licence once granted is to be renewed if there are no grounds for refusal as enumerated in Section 14 of the Act. The reason stated in Exts.P1 and P3 orders to decline renewal of licence is not a ground provided for in Section 14 of the Act. Exts.P1 and P3 orders, in the circumstances, are liable to be set aside on that sole ground."

In Sebastian Kuruvila (supra), this court held:-

"7. As contended by the petitioner, going by Section 3(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Rule 18 of the Arms Rules 2016, petitioner is entitled to carry two firearms. The legal entitlement of the petitioner to have two arms is not seriously disputed in the counter affidavit or in the impugned orders. The only reason stated in the counter affidavit as well as the impugned orders is that there is no imminent threat to the life of the petitioner so as to grant license allowing the request of the petitioner in Ext P1 application. In Chandran Nair's case cited supra this Court held that if the applicant feels that there is a threat to his life and property, there is no reason for the State to risk his life and property and further held that an applicant for license or for renewal of license under the Act need not establish that there exist threat to his life or property to get the license applied for or to get the existing license renewed. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment reads as follows;

"6. That apart, the protection of the life and property of the citizens is the responsibility of the State. It is only when a person apprehends that the machinery of the State may not come to his aid to protect his life and property, he/she applies for a license under the Act. The subjective satisfaction of the authorities under the Act that there is no threat to the life and property of the applicant may or may not be correct.

However, 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. True, the issue of licenses for possessing deadly arms should be done with great care and caution and with greater circumspection. But, that does not mean that the authorities under the Statute can act otherwise than in accordance with the Statute. If the intention is to prevent abuse of the use of the licensed weapons, adequate provisions are made in Section 14 of the Act to take care of such situations and the said objective has to be achieved in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As such, I am of the definite view that an applicant for licence or for renewal of licence under the Act need not establish that there exists threat to the life or property to get the licence applied for or to get the existing licence renewed."

This Court in Safar's case supra, the application for license was rejected on the ground that petitioner is an accused in a crime. This Court is Safar's case following the judgments in Chandran Nair's case as well as the case in Jose Kuttiyany v. Land Revenue Commission, Trivandrum and Others [2015 (3) KHC, 831] set aside the impugned orders and directed reconsideration of the application. This Court in Jose Kuttiyany's case cited supra held that to reject a licence application of the petitioner on the ground that the possession of arm license by the petitioner is detrimental to the security of the public peace, or for public safety. It is incumbent on the authorities to record a finding as to how and under what circumstances and in what manner the possession of arms license will be detrimental to the public peace, safety and security and the Court directed to renew the license inspite of the fact that the petitioner therein is involved in other crime. It is relevant to note that the renewal of license held by the petitioner in respect of the gun in question was rejected by the authorities in 2011 for the reason that a crime is pending against him. But a perusal of Ext P2 order would reveal that the said finding that petitioner is involved in Crime No. 277/2004 appears to be a wrong and that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Therefore, the rejection of renewal application of the petitioner in 2011 is also on an unsustainable ground. It is also pertinent to note that in the counter affidavit it is admitted that the Tahsildar has reported that there is no objection in adding another weapon into the applicant's license. It is further W.P (C) No.38329/2016 -6- to be noted that there is no reason stated in the impugned orders as any of the reason stated in Section 14 of the Arms Act to reject the application of the petitioner."

In the light of the above Ext.P5 is quashed. The application filed by the petitioner for renewal of Arms licence shall be reconsidered by the 1 st respondent keeping in mind the law laid down by this court in Chandran Nair (supra) and in Sebastian Kuruvila (supra). The 1st respondent shall take a fresh decision in the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim and it is open to the 1 st respondent to take a decision in accordance with the law and keeping in mind the law laid down by this court in Chandran Nair (supra) and in Sebastian Kuruvila (supra) Writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG W.P (C) No.38329/2016 -7- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38329/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAMBAN (JAMMU AND KASHMIR) TO THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANNUR DT.NIL.

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GUARANTEE CARD RELATING TO GUN OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED FROM KHAJURIA GUN HOUSE, JAMMU.

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.177/DMR/JC ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAMBAN (JAMMU AND KASHMIR).

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE4 FORMS OF RENEWAL OF LICENSE WITH THE ENDORSEMENTS BY R1 RENEWING THE LICENCE UP TO 16-1-15.

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT D-DIS 2015/7478/13/D3 DT.2-10-16.