Allen Mendez vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 21996 Ker

WP(C) NO. 7839 OF 2016            1



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 7839 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:

              ALLEN MENDEZ
              AGED 44 YEARS
              S/O.MARCELLINE MENDEZ, ALLEN VILLA, ANANYA NAGAR,
              PUNNATHALA THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O, KOLLAM.

              BY ADV SRI.SAJU J PANICKER


RESPONDENT/S:
    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME
          DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

      2       LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
              PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
              695033

      3       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
              ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

      4       THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
              ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

      5       THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
              ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA - 688
              001.


OTHER PRESENT:
          SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 7839 OF 2016               2




                      P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                --------------------------------------------
                    W.P.(C.) No.7839 of 2016
                   --------------------------------------
            Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2021


                               JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

i. "Issue a writ of certiorari calling for records relating to Ext P3 and quash the same.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to carry on the business ignoring Ext P3.

iii. issue such other relief that this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. According to the petitioner, he is conducting the

business of dealership in arms and ammunition in the name

and style 'Armstrong Armoury'. According to the petitioner,

he is conducting the business as per Rules and Regulations

and strictly complying the regulations laid down in the

licence. It is further stated by the petitioner that the 5 th

respondent issued a letter to the petitioner to deposit the

arms in the armoury of the petitioner before the Bell of Arms

in AR camp due to the reason that there is Maoist threat. In

the said letter, it is stated that there is an order from the

4threspondent that there is Maoist threat. It is the specific

case of the petitioner that the copy of the report of the 4 th

respondent is not given to the petitioner. It is further stated

in the writ petition that there are around 25 armoury shops

in Kerala and no other shop owner was given with such letter

by the Police, except the petitioner. According to the

petitioner, armoury shops are existing in Idukki and Wayanad

and no such letter was issued to any shops in these districts.

It is the definite case of the petitioner that without

conducting any proper enquiry, Ext.P3 was issued to the

petitioner. According to the petitioner, because of the above

order, the business of the petitioner was closed down. In

such circumstances, the above writ petition is filed.

3. When the above writ petition came up for

consideration, this Court stayed Ext.P3 order and the interim

order was extended until further orders on 9.6.2016. Even

now, the interim order is in force and based on the same, the

petitioner is in possession of the Arms.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the renewal

application is not considered by the authorities, because of

the pendency of this writ petition. The counsel submitted that

the petitioner is ready to submit renewal application before

the authorities concerned and there may be a direction to the

authorities concerned to consider the same, in accordance to

law. In such circumstances, according to me, this writ

petition can be disposed allowing the petitioner to approach

the competent authority to renew the licence and there can

be a direction to consider the same, within a time limit. Since

Ext.P3 order is stayed by this Court from 2016, I think, in the

facts and circumstances of this case, the same can be set

aside and the renewal application can be directed to consider

afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following

manner :

1) Ext.P3 is set aside.

2) The petitioner is directed to submit a renewal

application for the arms in his possession within

three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment before the competent authorities,

among the respondents.

3) If such a renewal application is received by the

competent authority among the respondents, the

same will be considered by the competent

authority and pass appropriate orders in it, within

three weeks from the date of receipt of the renewal

application.

4) Till final orders are passed in the renewal

application, all coercive steps against the

petitioner are stayed.

SD/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7839/2016

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

P1 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER FORM XI, XII, XIV

P2 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

P3 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT

P4 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.12.2015 FOR RENEWAL OF ARMS LICENCE