Subash P vs The District Collector(District ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4816 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4816 Ker
Judgement Date : 10 February, 2021

Kerala High Court

Subash P vs The District Collector(District ... on 10 February, 2021

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942

                   WP(C).No.19157 OF 2017(T)


PETITIONER:

              SUBASH P.,
              S/O.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 38 YEARS,
              OKARAPALLAM HOUSE,
              THENARI (POST),
              ELAPULLY II VILLAGE,
              PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTICT

              BY ADV. SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR

RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR(DISTRICT MAGISTRATE),
              PALAKKAD REVENUE DISTRICT,
              CIVIL STATION,
              PALAKKAD, PIN-678001

     2        THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
              PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
              PALAKKAD, PIN-678001

     3        STATE OF KERALA,
              REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
              HOME DEPARTMENT,
              GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001

              BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.M.RASHMI

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.19157/2017
                                :2 :




                        JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

Dated this the 10th day of February, 2021

The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P5

orders by which the respondents have rejected the application

of the petitioner for fresh Arms licence.

2. The petitioner states that he is a law abiding citizen

and used to raise protest against the practice of corruption

prevailing in the society. The petitioner has fought against

unauthorised conversion of paddy lands and hence land mafia

are inimical to him. The activities of the petitioner have given

rise to a number of enemies to the petitioner. The petitioner,

in fact, faces threat to his life from various quarters.

3. The petitioner therefore applied for a fresh Arms

licence on 04.02.2015, for self protection. The District

Magistrate, however, passed Ext.P4 order rejecting the

application of the petitioner on the ground that the WP(C) No.19157/2017

Government have instructed that fresh gun licence should only

be granted to persons if the person faces serious threat to his

life or property. According to the District Magistrate, in the

petitioner's case, the District Police Chief reported that the

petitioner is not facing threat to his life. Aggrieved by the said

Ext.P4 order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Land

Revenue Commissioner. The Land Revenue Commissioner

also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner as per Ext.P5,

holding that there is no valid reason to issue Arms licence to

the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

5. Grant and refusal of Arms licences are governed by

Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. Section 14 of the

Arms Act, 1959 reads as follows:-

"Section 14: Refusal of licences-

(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, licensing authority shall refuse to grant--

(a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition;

(b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,--

(i) where such licence is required by a person whom WP(C) No.19157/2017

the licensing authority has reason to believe-- (1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or (2) to be of unsound mind, or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or

(ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence.

(2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property. (3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement."

Therefore, it is clear that licence for Arms can be denied only

on the grounds enumerated in Section 14.

6. This Court has held in the judgment in Chandran

Nair C. v. Additional District Magistrate, Kasaragod and

others [2015 (1) KLT 41] that an applicant for licence or for

renewal of licence under the Arms Act need not establish that

there exists threat to life or property, to get licence applied for

or to get the existing licence renewed. Exts.P4 and P5 orders

go against the law laid down by this Court in Chandran Nair's

Case.

WP(C) No.19157/2017

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed.