Kerala High Court
K.J.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 5 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.97 OF 2021(J)
PETITIONER:
K.J.MATHEW
AGED 81 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, KAINIKKAL HOUSE, KIDANGANADU P.O,
VADAKKANAD, SULTHAN BATHERY
WYANAD DISTRICT 673 592
BY ADVS.
SRI.D.KISHORE
SMT.MEERA GOPINATH
SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE (G) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
PUBLIC OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033
3 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WYNAD 673 121
4 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
SULTAN BATHERY, WYANAD 673 592
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
WYANAD 673 121
6 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SULTHAN BATHERY, WYANAD 673 592
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.PRINCY XAVIER,GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.97 OF 2021(J)
2
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is aggrieved by the delay in passing
orders on his application for renewal of licence for
possession of fire arms. It is stated that the second
respondent had already remanded the matter after
considering the appeal submitted by the petitioner as
against the rejection of the application for renewal
of licence by the 3rd respondent. Even though Ext.P3
order remitting the matter to the 3 rd respondent was
issued as early as on 14.06.2017, so far no orders
are passed. Even though the matter was considered in
the Adalath, as per Ext.P4 letter dated 02.11.2020
the 3rd respondent has informed the petitioner that
final orders could not be passed since petitioner did
not produce further evidence relating to the
incidents affecting threat to the life and property
of the petitioner.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that
W.P.(C).No.97 OF 2021(J)
for issuing orders on application for renewal of
licence it is not necessary that petitioner should
produce evidence relating to the threat to his life
and property as he was already having the licence
since the year 1985 and it was being renewed. Relying
on the judgment of this Court in Chandran Nair v.
Additional District Magistrate, Kasargode [2015 (1)
KHC 351], learned counsel for the petitioner points
out that there is no justifiable reason for denying
renewal of licence to the petitioner.
3. It is seen that Ext.P3 order was passed by
the second respondent as early as in June 2017 and so
far 3rd respondent has not passed any orders on the
renewal application despite the fact that the
petitioner was granted licence in the year 1985 and
it was being renewed since then and an application
for renewal was submitted as early as in January
2012. Therefore there shall be a direction to the 3 rd
respondent to pass orders within a period of 'two
W.P.(C).No.97 OF 2021(J)
months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner, taking note of the judgments of
this Court in Chandran Nair v. Additional District
Magistrate, Kasargode [2015 (1) KHC 351], C.P.Raman
Nair v. Additional District Magistrate, Kasargode and
others [AIR 1968 Kerala 65] etc.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA, JUDGE
AS
W.P.(C).No.97 OF 2021(J)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
11-06-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY
COLLECTOR(GENERAL) WYANAD
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
M1/2012/612/12 DATED 11-09-2012 OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
LR(A5) 51092/12 DATED 14-06-2017 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
2-11-2020 OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR
(GENERAL) ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
