Kerala High Court
Anil C.R vs The District Magistrate on 22 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 6851 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
ANIL C.R.,
AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O. K.K. RAGHAVAN (LATE),
CHETTICHATHU HOUSE,
KANJIRAMATTOM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM-682315.
BY ADVS.
M.R.NANDAKUMAR
SAJI KURIACHAN
MAYIKA SUNDAR
AMEER SALIM
JAYAKRISHNAN V.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
CIVIL STATION P.O., KAKKANAD,
ENAKULAM DISTRICT-682030.
2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
ALUVA RURAL, ALUVA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683101.
SRI.APPU P.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.6851/2022
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2022
The petitioner seeks to command the 1st
respondent to renew the Arms Licence of the petitioner
within a time schedule.
2. The petitioner states that he is an Abkari
Contractor. He obtained an Arms Licence in the year 2000.
The Arms Licence was renewed from time to time and it
was valid up to 31.12.2012. After the expiry of the said
period, the petitioner applied for renewal of licence, as
evidenced by Ext.P1.
3. On receipt of Ext.P1 application, the Licencing
Authority called for reports from various authorities including
Officer in Charge of Mulanthuruthy Police Station. It is the
WP(C)No.6851/2022
case of the petitioner that the said Officer in Charge of
Mulanthuruthy Police Station did not give any report at all.
More than nine years have lapsed after filing the renewal
application.
4. The learned Government Pleader entered
appearance on behalf of the respondents and contested the
writ petition. The learned Government Pleader submitted
that since the Arms Licence of the petitioner expired long
back in the year 2012, at this distance of time to grant a
renewal of licence, fresh reports will have to be called for.
The 1st respondent has already called for reports from
Police Authorities and the Tahsildar concerned. The 1 st
respondent is expecting reports from those authorities in
two or three weeks. The application of the petitioner will be
considered in the light of those reports and orders will be
passed without further delay.
WP(C)No.6851/2022
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
6. The application for renewal of Arms Licence
made by the petitioner is a statutory application made under
the Arms Act and Rules made thereunder. Therefore, such
an application has to be considered by the competent
authority without delay. In the present case, however, the
petitioner's licence had expired in the year 2012. Therefore,
the 1st respondent will be justified in calling for fresh reports.
This Court has held in the judgment in Chandran Nair v.
Additional District Magistrate [2015 (1) KLT 41], that an
application for renewal of Arms Licence can be declined
only on the grounds enumerated in Section 14 of the Arms
Act.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
writ petition is disposed of directing the 1 st respondent to
consider Ext.P1 renewal application submitted by the
WP(C)No.6851/2022
petitioner under the Arms Act after calling for the records
from authorities concerned and take appropriate decision
thereon, within a period of two months. Needless to say,
the application for renewal of Arms Licence submitted by
the petitioner should be considered in the light of the law
laid down by this Court in Chandran Nair (Supra).
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
SR
WP(C)No.6851/2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6851/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF RENEWAL APPLICATION
DATED 01/10/2012.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REMIND LETTER
REFERENCE TO EXHIBIT P1 DATED
07/10/2015.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REMIND LETTER WITH
REFERENCE TO EXHIBIT P2 DATED
08/03/2019.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSIT RECEIPT
NO.3287/13 DATED 07/03/2013.
SR //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
