Pradeep K R vs The District Magistrate
2022 Latest Caselaw 3981 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
     TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 3583 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

           PRADEEP K.R.,
           AGED 48 YEARS,
           S/O. RAMAN NAIR, KRISHNA NIVAS,
           NELLADU, MUZHUVANNOR, ERNAKULAM-686 669.

           BY ADV R.S.ASWINI SANKAR(K/333/2013)


RESPONDENTS:

    1      THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
           ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
           CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
           ERNAKULAM P.O., 682 030.

    2      TAHSILDAR,
           MINI CIVIL STATION,
           MOOVATTUPUZHA-686 673.

    3      DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (RURAL),
           DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE,
           ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA-683 101.

    4      DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
           MALAYATTOOR DIVISION, KODANAD P.O.,
           ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT-683 544.

  ADDL.5   COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
           LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE,
           REVENUE COMPLEX, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,
           MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

           [ADDITIONAL R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
           23.03.2022 IN I.A.2/2022 IN WP(C)3583/2022.]

           SRI.APPU P.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.3583/2022

                                   2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5th day of April, 2022

The petitioner submitted an application for

issuance of Arms Licence for self protection. The 1 st

respondent rejected the application. The petitioner states

that the Tahsildar, the Police Superintendent and the

Divisional Forest Officer, all submitted reports in favour of

the petitioner. There is no criminal case pending against

the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner ought to

have been issued licence. The rejection of the petitioner's

application as per Ext.P1 is illegal and unsustainable.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the

respondents.

WP(C)No.3583/2022

3. From the pleadings available in the writ petition,

it is seen that the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 statutory appeal

against Ext.P1 impugned order, before the additional 5 th

respondent. As Ext.P7 is a statutory appeal, the additional

5th respondent is bound to consider the same and pass

orders thereon in accordance with law within a reasonable

time.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed

of directing the additional 5th respondent to consider and

pass orders on Ext.P7 appeal, within a period of two

months.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR WP(C)No.3583/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3583/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

M3/5347/2021 DATED 21/12/2021 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT.

    Exhibit P2         TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
                       2ND   RESPONDENT   BEFORE    THE  IST

RESPONDENT DATED 23/07/2021.

    Exhibit P3         TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
                       4TH   RESPONDENT   BEFORE    THE  IST

RESPONDENT DATED 10/08/2021. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 06/08/2021.

    Exhibit P5         TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
                       STATION      HOUSE    OFFICER,     OF

KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION, BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 10/08/2201.

    Exhibit P6         TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY
                       THE   PETITIONER   BEFORE    THE  IST

RESPONDENT DATED 06/11/2021. Exhibit P7 TYPED COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE DATED 4.2.2022 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 8.2.2022

SR