Sakkeer Hussain.V vs The District Collector
2023 Latest Caselaw 5042 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
                     WP(C) NO. 13400 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

            SAKKEER HUSSAIN.V
            AGED 56 YEARS
            S/O. SAMINA N.A,
            VADAYIL HOUSE,
            ADAKKAKUNDU P.O.,
            KALIKAVU,
            MALAPPURAM,
            PIN - 676525

            BY ADVS.
            RAFEEK. V.K.
            T.MUHAMMED IQBAL
            K.S.SUNEER
            SALMAN FARIS


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
            COLLECTORATE,
            MALAPPURAM,
            PIN - 676505

    2       THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
            MALAPPURAM,
            PIN - 676505

    3       THE DIVISIONSL FOREST OFFICER
            OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE,
            NILAMBUR SOUTH DIVISION,
            MALAPPURAM,
            PIN - 679329



            BY SMT. RESHMI.K.M., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   13.04.2023,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C.) No. 13400/2023         2




                           JUDGMENT

Petitioner has sought for a fresh gun licence as per the

provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, (for short, the 'Act,

1959') which was rejected as per Ext.P2 order, dated

25.02.2023 by the Additional District Magistrate, Civil

Station, Malappuram,. It is thus challenging the legality and

correctness of Ext.P2 order, the writ petition is filed.

2. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the Additional District Magistrate has not taken

into account the provisions of the Act, 1959 before

finalising the application submitted by the petitioner and

therefore, Ext.P2 order is arbitrary and illegal susceptible to

be interfered by this Court.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner,

Sri.Rafeek V.K. and learned Senior Government Pleader,

Smt. Deepa Narayanan and perused the pleadings and

material on record.

4. There is no doubt that as per the provisions of

the Act, 1959, an appeal is provided to the Land Revenue

Commissioner from the order passed by the Additional

District Magistrate. Even though learned counsel for the

petitioner has advanced various contentions with respect to

the illegality in Ext.P2, what I could gather from the said

order is that for rejecting the application submitted by the

petitioner, reasons are assigned taking into account the

provisions of the Act, 1959.

5. In that view of the matter, I do not think that

Ext.P2 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness or illegality

susceptible to be interfered in a proceeding under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. This is more so, when a

statutory appeal is available to the petitioner. Therefore, I

do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition.

However, if the petitioner is filing an appeal, within two

weeks from today before the Land Revenue Commissioner,

Thiruvananthapuram, it shall be treated as within time and

a decision shall be taken within two months from the date

of filing of the appeal, after providing an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

DCS/13.04.2023

APPENDIX

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14-12-2022 WITH TRAINING CERTIFICATE

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,MALAPPURAM, DATED 25-02-2023