Kerala High Court
Moidu A.T vs Land Revenue Commissioner on 23 February, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024/4TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 1047 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MOIDU A.T
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. AAMMED,
ARIMBRA THAYYIL HOUSE,
EDEPATTA.P.0., MELATTUR,
PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 679326
BY ADVS.
SAJI KURIACHAN
M.R.NANDAKUMAR
JAYAPRAKASH NARAYANAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION,
VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
CIVIL STATION.P.O,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
3 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
CIVIL STATION.P.O. MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676505
SRI.SREEJITH V.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.1047/2024
:2:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.1047 of 2024
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner applied for grant of additional Arms
licence. The application stands rejected as per Ext.P5 order.
2. The petitioner states that he is a farmer and
businessman. He holds 25 Acres of agricultural land
abutting reserve forest. Wild animals are causing damage to
the crops. The petitioner therefore applied for and obtained
Arms licence for a 32 Bore pistol and the licence was
renewed up to 03.02.2026.
3. In the year 2013, the petitioner was attacked by
some miscreants and a crime was registered for offences
under Sections 324, 326 and 307 IPC. As the petitioner
faced threat to his life, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1
application for additional Arms licence. This Court, as per
Ext.P3 judgment in W.P.(C) No.1624/2022, directed the 2 nd
respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1
application for additional Arms Licence. The application was,
however, rejected by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P3 order.
The petitioner filed appeal before the 1 st respondent. The 1st
respondent-Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and
directed the 3rd respondent to reconsider the application.
The 3rd respondent again rejected the application for
additional weapon, as per Ext.P5 order.
4. The petitioner submits that Ext.P5 order is illegal.
The 3rd respondent has no authority to deny additional
licence to the petitioner. This Court has held in the judgment
in Chandran Nair v. Additional District Magistrate [2015
(1) KLT 41] that a combined reading of Sections 14 and 15 of
the Arms Act would indicate that once a licence is granted
under the Act, the same shall be renewed from time to time,
unless there exists a ground for refusal as enumerated under
Section 14 of the Act. An applicant for licence or for renewal
of licence under the Act need not establish that there exists
threat to the life or property, to get the licence applied for or
to get the existing licence renewed. The 3 rd respondent is
therefore compellable to grant additional Arms licence to the
petitioner.
5. The 2nd respondent resisted the writ petition filing
counter affidavit. The 2nd respondent stated that the claim of
the petitioner is that he was attacked in 2013. The accused
in that case was convicted by the Court. The petitioner has
already been granted one gun licence for self protection.
The petitioner has not produced sufficient materials to
establish his need for additional weapon. The petitioner has
no genuine reason for obtaining additional weapon.
6. The 2nd respondent submitted that the application
of the petitioner would not fall under Section 13(3)(a)(i) and
(ii). Hence, Section 13(b) will apply to the case of the
petitioner. The petitioner is not a member of Rifle Club or
Rifle Association licensed or recognised by the Central
Government. The writ petition is therefore liable to be
dismissed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader representing the
respondents.
8. The petitioner holds an Arms licence for 32 Bore
pistol which is valid up to 03.02.2026. The petitioner applied
for licence to hold an additional weapon. The 3 rd respondent
rejected the said application as per Ext.P3 order dated
05.11.2022. The 3rd respondent noted that the District Police
Chief has refused to recommend grant of licence for
additional weapon. The 3rd respondent rejected the
application based on the recommendation of the District
Police Chief.
9. When the petitioner filed an appeal against Ext.P3
order, the 1st respondent-appellate authority found that the
requirement of the petitioner to hold a different type of
weapon for the purpose of protection of agriculture, has not
been considered by the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent
also noted that the 3rd respondent has also not considered
whether the petitioner has undergone requisite training to
hold additional gun licence. Therefore, the 1 st respondent
allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back as per
Ext.P4 order dated 02.10.2023.
10. The 3rd respondent again rejected the application
as per Ext.P5 order dated 19.12.2023. While rejecting the
application, the 3rd respondent noted that in order to protect
agriculture in the area from wild boars, the Local Self
Government Institutions have drawn a panel of shooters and
therefore if the petitioner wants additional Arms licence, the
petitioner can surrender the pistol possessed by him and
apply for a fresh Arms licence.
11. The petitioner is holding 25 Acres of agricultural
land abutting reserve forest area. There is a fair chance that
wild animals attack the petitioner's crop and property. The
petitioner therefore wants to hold a different type of gun for
which he has submitted application. The fact that to protect
agriculture from wild boars, the Local Self Government
Institutions have drawn a panel of licensed shooters, cannot
be a reason to deny Arms licence to the petitioner. If the
petitioner is granted licence to hold suitable Arms, the
petitioner will be in a position to drive away wild animals from
his 25 Acres of agricultural property. The licensed shooters
included in the panel, who are stationed at different areas,
will not be as effective as the petitioner who is protecting his
own agricultural land.
12. The question whether an application for Arms
licence can be rejected on the ground that the applicant is
not under any potential threat, was considered and decided
by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in
Aboobaker V.T. and others v. Land Revenue
Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2022 (2)
KHC 170 (DB)]. This Court held that the licensing authority
is vested with powers to consider application for grant of
licence or renewal of licence taking into account the reasons
enumerated in Section 13(3)(b), except the ones specified in
Section 13(3)(a)(i) and (ii). Except under the circumstances
mentioned in Section 13(3)(a)(i) and (ii) for consideration of
application for licences, the provisions of Section 13(3)(b)
can be relied upon for assimilating any good reason in order
to grant, renewal or refuse the licence. Going by the law laid
down by this Court, rejection of the petitioner's application for
additional Arms licence on the ground that he failed to prove
the need for an additional Fire Arm for self protection, is
unsustainable.
The writ petition is therefore allowed. Ext.P5 is set
aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to pass orders on the
application submitted by the petitioner for additional Arms
licence afresh.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/21.02.2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1047/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR
ADDITIONAL LICENSE DATED 14- 10-2021
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)
NO. 16242 OF 2022 DATED 22-06- 2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED
05-11-2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.LR/1077/2023/LRA5 DATED 27-10-2023
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTED ORDER NO.
DCMPM/9798/2020-E4 DATED 19-12-2023 OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT DATED
15-02- 2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. 35111/2015
AND CONNECTED CASES OF THIS COURT
REPORTED IN 2022 (2) KHC 170 (DB)
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-10-
2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.24416 OF 2022
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30-01-
2019 IN SESSIONS CASE NO.250/2014
