Kerala High Court
V.T. Aboobacker vs The Land Revenue Commissioner on 29 February, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024/10TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 20913 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
V.T. ABOOBACKER,
AGED 67 YEARS,
S/O. MOOSA MASTER ASHRAF MANZIL,
(VALIYATHODIYIL)
HOUSE NO. 26/1891 (36/2062),
THIRUVANNUR P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673029
BY ADVS.
T.G.RAJENDRAN
T.R.TARIN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673571
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673571
BY SMT.REKHA C NAIR, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.20913/2023
:2:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.20913 of 2023
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 29th day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner, who is member of National Rifle
Shooters Association, seeks to quash Ext.P6 order of the
Land Revenue Commissioner and to direct the Land
Revenue Commissioner to reconsider Ext.P4 appeal in the
light of various decisions of this Court and to reinstate the
Arms licence issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner states that he is holding Arms
licence No.2080/KDE for self protection. The licence was
issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Kozhikode on
05.07.1995.
3. The petitioner states that on 11.03.1999, the
petitioner sought renewal of licence. The Additional District
Magistrate, however, issued a show-cause notice to the
petitioner proposing to cancel the licence. In spite of giving
reply, the Arms licence was cancelled.
4. The petitioner filed appeal before the 1 st
respondent-Land Revenue Commissioner. The District
Police Chief submitted a report that the petitioner is an
accused in Crime No.236/2001 under Section 10 of the
UAPA. It was based on the said report, the licensing
authority rejected the petitioner's application on 23.02.2006.
5. The petitioner states that the crime against the
petitioner was quashed by this Court. The petitioner
therefore sought reinstatement of his cancelled licence. The
application was, however, rejected. In the appeal filed by the
petitioner, the appellate authority remitted the matter back to
the 2nd respondent. But, the 2nd respondent again rejected
the application for reinstatement of his licence holding that
the District Police Chief has not made a positive
recommendation.
6. The petitioner again filed appeal. The 1 st
respondent-Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as per
Ext.P1 order dated 30.10.2015 holding that there is no proof
on record to show that the appellant faces threat to his life or
property. The petitioner filed yet another appeal. After
considering the contentions of the petitioner and the report
submitted by the District Police Chief, the 1 st respondent
once again dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P6 order dated
30.05.2023. In Ext.P6, it was stated that there is no threat to
the life of the petitioner.
7. The petitioner states that Ext.P6 order is wrong
and contrary to law. The respondents should have noted
that the licence issued to the petitioner is for his self
protection. There is no instance of misuse of Arms licence
by the petitioner. Arms licence was denied to the petitioner
initially due to his involvement in a crime. The said crime
was quashed by this Court. Even otherwise, renewal of
Arms licence cannot be refused solely due to pendency of a
criminal case.
8. The respondents cannot reject an application for
renewal of licence on speculations. The reasons for such
refusal shall be recorded. Ext.P6 order lacks clarity. Ext.P6
does not contain tangible reasons.
9. The 2nd respondent resisted the writ petition filing
counter affidavit. The 2nd respondent submitted that when
the petitioner applied for renewal of Arms licence on
11.03.1999, the District Police Chief objected the renewal, as
the petitioner was office bearer of an Islamic Fundamentalist
Organisation called WAMY. A notice was issued to the
petitioner against the adverse remarks and the petitioner
explained that he was only a labour supervisor under the
Organisation WAMY. The District Police Chief, however,
reiterated his objection. When renewal was declined, the
petitioner filed appeal and the 1 st respondent remanded the
matter back to the licensing authority as per Ext.R2(b) for
fresh disposal. The petitioner was heard again and his
application was rejected. The petitioner's appeal is also
rejected as per Ext.P6 order dated 30.05.2023. The writ
petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed,
contended the 2nd respondent.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the
respondents.
11. The petitioner is a member of National Rifle
Shooters Association. He held Arms licence for self
protection since 05.07.1995. In the year 1999, the petitioner
applied for renewal of licence. However, the petitioner's
licence was cancelled. In appeal, the cancellation was set
aside and the matter was remitted back. The cancellation
was again upheld holding that the petitioner is an accused in
Crime No.236/2001 under Section 10 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The rejection was in the
year 2006.
12. Subsequently, when this Court quashed the
criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the petitioner
again submitted an application on 19.10.2009. The 2 nd
respondent declined to reinstate the cancelled licence. On
11.11.2014, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1 st
respondent. As the appeal was not considered, the
petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.26316/2015. This Court disposed
of the writ petition directing to consider the appeal within
three months. The 1st respondent rejected the appeal stating
that the petitioner does not face threat to his life or property.
13. The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 order filing
W.P.(C) No.35111/2015. The said writ petition was heard by
a Division Bench along with connected matters and was
disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment. In Ext.P2 judgment, the
Division Bench of this Court held that for consideration of
applications for licence under Sections 14 and 15 of the
Arms Act, the provisions of Section 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 Section 13(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of
the Act, 1959. The Division Bench held that the licences
dealt under Section 13(3)(a)(i) and (ii) are classified as
distinct one so as not to attract the requirement of good
reason.
14. Pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment, the petitioner was
again heard. However, the respondent rejected the
application stating that the petitioner has not brought in any
instance to establish that there exists a threat to the life or
property of the petitioner. The 2 nd respondent also noted that
police also has filed report stating that licence of the
petitioner need not be renewed.
15. The petitioner filed appeal. The 1 st respondent
again rejected the appeal stating that there is no threat to the
life of the petitioner. The petitioner states that the rejection
goes against the law laid down by this Court in the judgment
in Chandran Nair v. Additional District Magistrate [2015
(1) KLT 41].
16. The respondents resisted the writ petition filing
counter affidavit. The 2nd respondent in his counter affidavit
stated that the petitioner had applied for renewal of Arms
licence. The District Police Chief, Kozhikode City objected to
the renewal on the ground that he is an office bearer of an
Islamic Fundamentalist Organisation called WAMY. On the
basis of the strong objection by the District Police Chief, the
2nd respondent cancelled the Arms licence.
17. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the 2 nd
respondent was directed to reconsider the matter. The 2 nd
respondent submitted that the licence was cancelled in the
year 2000 and till date no instances of any threat to life was
reported to the authorities concerned. Section 13 of the
Arms Act mandated that the licensing authority shall obtain
report of the police authority. The police authority did not
recommend licence to the petitioner.
18. It may be noted that the petitioner was originally
issued with an Arms licence. The licence was cancelled on
the basis of a police report stating that the petitioner is a
member of a Fundamentalist Association and is an accused
in Crime No.236/2001 under Section 10 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act. The respondents have no case
that the Fundamentalist Organisation in which the petitioner
is stated to be a member, is a banned Organisation. The
petitioner would assert that he is not a member of the said
Association, but was an employee. It is an admitted position
that the criminal proceedings related to Crime No.236/2001
was quashed by this Court.
19. However, the cancellation of licence of the
petitioner has been upheld by Ext.P6 on the ground that the
petitioner is not facing any threat to his life. In Ext.P6, the
appellate authority has held that the petitioner has failed to
establish that there is any threat to his life or property. The
appellate authority held that the petitioner has not produced
any documents to show that he faces threat to his life.
20. This Court has considered the question of renewal
of licence of a person who is involved in a crime in the
decision reported in Jose Kuttiyani v. Land Revenue
Commissioner and others [2015 (3) KLT 780] and has held
that the provisions under Section 17 of the Arms Act shall not
be pressed into service on the basis of pendency of a
criminal case. Originally, the pendency of a criminal case
against the petitioner was the reason advanced for non-
renewal/reinstatement of the licence originally granted to the
petitioner.
21. Furthermore, this Court has held in the judgment
in Chandran Nair (supra) that an applicant for licence or for
renewal of licence under the Arms 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. In
view of the law laid down by this Court, Ext.P6 order cannot
stand the scrutiny of law.
22. Ext.P6 is therefore set aside. The 1 st respondent
is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 appeal and pass appropriate
orders afresh expeditiously.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/28.02.2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20913/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.10.2015
Exhibit P2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF W.P.
(C) NO. 35111/2015 DATED 15.2.2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.6.2022
Exhibit P4 . COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 17.8.2022
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.
40520/2022 DATED 20.2.2023
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 30.5.2023
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
Exhibit R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19-09-
Exhibit R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO
LR.A5/41881/2000/K DIS DATED 05-10-
Exhibit R2(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.D3/27231/1999 DATED 28-10-2000
