K.Mohammed Basheer vs The District Magistrate
2021 Latest Caselaw 19309 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
  TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA,
                             1943
                   WP(C) NO. 18881 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

           K.MOHAMMED BASHEER,
           AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED,
           KALATHIL HOUSE, ALANELLUR P.O.,
           MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 601.
           BY ADVS.
           SAJI KURIACHAN
           M.R.NANDAKUMAR


RESPONDENTS:

    1      THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
           COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD P.O.,
           PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 001.
    2      DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
           PALAKKAD P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT, 678 001.


           SMT.PRINCY XAVIER GP

        THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.18881 of 2021              2




                    W.P.(C) No.18881 of 2021
              -----------------------------------------------
                           JUDGMENT

Petitioner holds an arms licence. The term of the

licence expired on 30.11.2020. The petitioner, therefore,

preferred Ext.P1 application for renewal of the same. The

grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the

delay on the part of the first respondent in passing orders on

Ext.P1 application. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate

directions in this regard in the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

also the learned Government Pleader.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case, especially the judgment of this Court in Jose Kuttiyany

v. Land Revenue Commission, Tvm and others, 2015 (3)

KHC 831, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition

directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on

Ext.P1 application with notice to the petitioner. Ordered

accordingly. This shall be done within six weeks, after affording

the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Needless to say that

orders shall be passed as directed above, having regard to the

decision of this Court in Jose Kuttiyany. It is made clear that

the hearing ordered in terms of this judgment can be held

through video conferencing.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

YKB

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18881/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.10.2020.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONBLE HIGH COURT IN WPC NO.4603 OF 2014 OF THIS COURT REPORTED IN 2015 (3) KHC 831.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.02.2021 IN WPC NO.3132 OF 2021.