Mohammed Aneesh.P vs The District Magistrate
2021 Latest Caselaw 6576 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

  WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.3132 OF 2021(N)


PETITIONER:

               MOHAMMED ANEESH.P,
               AGED 39 YEARS,
               S/O.CHEKKU.P, PULATH HOUSE, NELLIYAMPADAMKALAM,
               CHOKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679 332.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.SAJI KURIACHAN
               SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
               MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505.

      2        DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
               MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505.

               BY ADV. SMT.VINITHA.B, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION           ON
24.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.3132 OF 2021(N)

                                         2

                                  JUDGMENT

Petitioner is aggrieved by the

delay in passing orders on his application

for renewal of Arms licence.

2. It is stated that petitioner is

already granted Arms licence for the

purpose of protection of life. It is

stated that the said licence expired on

30.04.2020. Even before that, petitioner

had submitted application remitting the

prescribed fee as per Ext.P1 receipt dated

18.02.2020 for renewal.

3. The learned Government Pleader on

instructions, stated that police report

has been received, according to which

there is no threat to the life of the

petitioner. At any rate, it is stated that

the petitioner is not heard so far.

4. The learned counsel for the WP(C).No.3132 OF 2021(N)

petitioner points out that in the question

of renewal, this Court has already

rendered judgment in Jose Kuttiyany v.

Land Revenue Commissioner [2015 (3) KLT

780] (Ext.P2), in which the judgment of

this Court in Chandran Nair v. Additional

District Magistrate [2015 (1) KLT 41] has

been followed. According to it, executive

orders cannot supersede statutory

provisions and grant of renewal and grant

of renewal shall be strictly in accordance

with the statutory provisions contained in

Arms Act and Rules.

Therefore, there shall be a

direction to the 1st respondent to pass

orders on the application submitted by

petitioner for renewal of Arms licence,

taking note of the judgment of this Court

in Ext.P2, after affording an opportunity WP(C).No.3132 OF 2021(N)

of hearing to petitioner, within a period

of six weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of the judgment.

Accordingly, the writ petition is

disposed of.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA JUDGE WW WP(C).No.3132 OF 2021(N)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.02.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN W.P.

(C) NO.4603 OF 2014 OF THIS COURT REPORTED IN 2015 (3) KLT 780.