Manu Mathews vs The District Magistrate And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1062 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

    TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 22TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.23624 OF 2020(C)


PETITIONER:

               MANU MATHEWS
               AGED 24 YEARS
               S/O.K.P.MATHEWS,KAVUNGA HOUSE,
               AYYAMPUZHA.P.O, ERNAKULAM-683581.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.R.SANJITH
               SHRI.ROSHAN ANIL THOMAS
               SRI.B.R.ANEES
               SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH
               SMT.P.S.ANJU

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR
               CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM-682030.

      2        THE TAHSILDAR,
               CIVIL STATION,CIVIL STATION ROAD,
               ALUVA-683101.

      3        THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
               AYYAMPUZHA POLICE STATION,KALADY CIRCLE,PERUMBAVOOR
               SUB-DIVISION,
               KERALA-683581.

      4        DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
               MALAYATTUR,FOREST OFFICE ROAD,
               KODANAD,PERUMBAVOOR,KERALA-683544.

               R1-4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER


               SMT.VINITHA.B, GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.23624 OF 2020(C)

                                      2




                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of January 2021

The complaint of the petitioner is that, even

though, an application was submitted for licence to

possess Double Barrel Breach Loading gun as early as on

13.06.2017, the 1st respondent rejected the same. It is

also stated that the petitioner's father was having gun

licence and after the death of his father he has

submitted an application for licence.

2. The 3rd respondent has filed a statement,

explaining the incidents leading to the death of the

petitioner's father, stating that it was on account of

the negligent manner of use of the weapon. The 3 rd

respondent has stated in paragraph 3 of the statement

that the 1st respondent rejected the licence application

on the basis of the enquiry report of the Police

officer.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner has not received any such order WP(C).No.23624 OF 2020(C)

rejecting the application. It is also pointed out that

the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing.

Therefore, the Writ petition is disposed of

directing the 1st respondent to pass orders on Ext.P1

application after affording an opportunity of hearing

to the petitioner in accordance with law within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy

of the judgment.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA JUDGE DM WP(C).No.23624 OF 2020(C)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM DATED 13.06.2017 PREFERRED BY PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 17.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF BRIGHT ASSET TRANSIT PVT.LTD.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE