G. Mohandas vs The District Collector
2022 Latest Caselaw 9022 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9022 Ker
Judgement Date : 27 July, 2022

Kerala High Court

G. Mohandas vs The District Collector on 27 July, 2022

     WP(C).22364.22                          1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                      THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944
                           WP(C) NO. 22364 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

              G. MOHANDAS
              AGED 81 YEARS
              SON OF GOPALAN, SIVAM, XXXI-20-B3 APR 6TH LANE,
              AMBELIPADOM ROAD, VYTTILA-JANATHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
              682019

              BY ADVS.
              N.M.MADHU
              C.S.RAJANI



RESPONDENT/S:

       1      THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
              FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
              PIN - 682030

       2      THE TAHSILDAR,
              KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011

       3      THE VILLAGE OFFICER
              POONITHURA VILLAGE, VYTTILA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN -
              682019

       4      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
              KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020


OTHER PRESENT:

              GP P.S.APPU




        THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON     21.7.2022,       THE   COURT     ON       27.07.2022,   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
    WP(C).22364.22                        2




                              V.G.ARUN, J.
               -----------------------------------------------
                     W.P(C).No. 22364 of 2022
               -----------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner was having an arms licence which enabled him

to possess three weapons. The licence was valid up to 31.12.2021.

The petitioner surrendered the guns before expiry of the licence

and preferred an application for renewal of licence of two fire arms.

On receipt of the renewal application, the first respondent issued

Exhibit P2 letter to the second and fourth respondents requiring

those authorities to conduct an enquiry and submit report in the

prescribed format within 30 days. As there was inordinate delay in

taking decision on his application, the petitioner submitted Exhibit

P3 before the first respondent, requesting to prompt the second

respondent to submit the report at the earliest. As the representation

failed to evoke any positive response, details regarding the status of

enquiry was obtained under the Right to Information Act. The

information revealed that the second respondent had informed the

first respondent the reason for delay was the petitioner's failure to

respond to answer the query as to the reason for seeking arms

licence.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, unlike

an application for fresh licence under Section 14 of the Arms Act,

an application for renewal of licence under Section 15 does not

contain any specific ground for refusal. In support of this

proposition, reliance is placed on the decisions in Chandran Nair C

v. Additional District Magistrate, Kasaragod and Others [2015 (1)

KLT 41] and Jose Kuttiyany v. Land Revenue Commission [2015 (3)

KLT 780]. It is contended that the third respondent cannot require

the petitioner to provide reply to queries that have nothing to do

with the limited enquiry to be conducted by the said authority. As

such, the first respondent is bound to consider the application for

renewal after obtaining report from the second respondent.

3. Learned Government Pleader contended that the

considerations to be effected while granting a new licence and

renewing an existing licence are almost the same. Attention is

drawn to Section 15(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 which stipulates that

the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 shall apply to the renewal of a

licence in the same manner they would apply to grant of licence.

Reference is also made to Rule 24 of the Arms Rules, 2016 as per

which, every licence may be renewed within 30 days of receipt of

Police report, subject to the same conditions (if any) as to the

grant thereof. It is submitted that these requirements are not

addressed in the decisions relied on the petitioner.

4. I am unable to accept the contention that, unlike grant of a

fresh licence, the procedure for renewal of licence is just a

formality. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government

Pleader, Section 15(3) and Rule 22(1) indicate otherwise. This

position is considered and answered by the Division Bench in

Abookaker V.T and Others v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Tvm

and Others [2022(2) KHC 170], the relevant portion of which reads

as under;

"21. On a conjoint reading of S.13. S.14 and S.15, it is clear that apart from the conditions contained under S.14 and S. 15, the licensing authority is vested with powers to consider applications for grant of licence or renewal of licence taking into account the reasons enumerated in S. 13(3)(b), except the ones specified in S.13(3)(a)(i) and (i). Thus, on an analysis of the reference in the above manner, we come to the following conclusions:

For the consideration of applications for licences under S.14 and S.15 of Act 1959, the provisions of S.13(3)(b) can be relied upon for assimilating any "good reason" in order to grant, renew or refuse the licences, however, except under the circumstances mentioned under S.13(3)

(a)(i) and (ii) of Act, 1959 Thus to say, the licenses dealt with under S 13(3)(a) (i) and (i) are classified as a distinct one so as not to attract the requirement of 'good reason' envisaged in S.13(3)(b) Which thus also means, other than the specific circumstances made under S.13(3)(a)(i) and

(i), in all other cases discussed above, for consideration of applications for grant of licence and renewal, the provisions of S. 13(3)(b) would apply."

5. In the instant case, the delay is stated to be due to the

petitioner's failure to reply to a query raised by the revenue

authorities. I am of the opinion that the revenue authorities cannot

require the applicant to provide the reason for possessing the

firearm, since the enquiry on those aspects is conducted by the

Police.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of as under;

The first respondent shall require the second respondent to

submit the report expeditiously. Once report from the revenue and

police authorities are received, the petitioner's application for

renewal shall be taken up for consideration and orders passed

thereon within 30 days.