M.P. Varghese @ George Mundackal vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 237 Ker

WP(C).No.5 OF 2021(A)
                                  1

            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.5 OF 2021(A)


PETITIONER/S:

                M.P. VARGHESE @ GEORGE MUNDACKAL,
                AGED 70 YEARS
                S/O.POULOSE, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, KALLUVAYAL P.O.,
                SULTAN BATHERY, WYANAD DISTRICT-673592.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.D.KISHORE
                SMT.MEERA GOPINATH
                SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA,
                REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
                GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (G) DEPARTMENT,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      2         THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
                OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC
                OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

      3         THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
                WYANAD-673121.

      4         THE TAHSILDAR,
                TALUK OFFICE, SULTAN BATHERY, WYANAD-673592.

      5         THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                WYANAD-673121.

      6         THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                SULTAN BATHERY, WYANAD-673592.

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:
 WP(C).No.5 OF 2021(A)
                                      2




                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5th day of January 2021

The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his

application for renewal of license for possession of fire arms

as per Ext.P5 order issued as early as on 01.12.2017. It is

stated that he had submitted Ext.P6 representation before the

Deputy Commissioner, Revenue Department for renewal, in the year

2019 and thereafter the Government had as per Ext.P7 letter

forwarded his application to the 2nd respondent for appropriate

action and the 2nd respondent in turn forwarded it to the 3 rd

respondent who issued Ext.P9 order on 02.11.2020 forwarding a

copy of Ext.P5 order stating that the application was already

rejected and license was cancelled.

2. The contention of the petitioner was that in case the

Government had rejected the application or forwarded it to the

2nd respondent with a direction to treat it as an appeal,

petitioner would have got his claim adjudicated properly.

3. The learned Government Pleader points out that Ext.P6 is

not an appeal and that even Ext.P6 was not submitted either in

time or before the appropriate authority. Pointing out the delay

in approaching the authorities in accordance with the statutory

provisions as also this Court, the learned Government Pleader

points out that the application Ext.P6 cannot be treated as an

appeal.

WP(C).No.5 OF 2021(A)

4. The petitioner relies on the judgment Ext.P10 and

subsequent and previous judgments of this Court in which this

Court has interfered with orders like Ext.P5. In the

circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner

can approach the 2nd respondent with a proper appeal which the 2 nd

respondent shall consider in accordance with law. Since the

petitioner has already approached the Deputy Commissioner as

well as the Government and the Government had in turn directed

respondents 2 and 3, respondents 2 and 3 had also occasion to

consider the same during the relevant period from 2017 to 2020,

I am of the view that the delay in approaching the 2 nd respondent

would be liable to be condoned.

There shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider

the appeal if the petitioner submits the same within a period of

two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Orders shall be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing

to the petitioner taking note of the judgments relied on by the

petitioner in accordance with law within a further period of two

months.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

                                                           P.V.ASHA

rkc                                                          JUDGE
 WP(C).No.5 OF 2021(A)




                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1              TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN

THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 03.07.1984.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF RENEWAL OF LICENCE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.03.2014 IN W.P.(C) 4728/2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M1 18383/2012 DATED 06.11.2014 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M1/2014/36340/12 DATED 01.12.2017 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.01.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.REV-

G2/83/2019-REV DATED 17.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.LR(A5)15706/2019 DATED 30.05.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 02.11.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ORDER NO.M1/2014/36340/12 DATED 01.12.2017.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.06.2015 IN W.P.(C)NO.17840/2015 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.