Kerala High Court
Rejeesh.R vs The District Magistrate on 21 May, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 41951 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
REJEESH.R
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. M.RADHAKRISHNAN,
NAKSHATRA SARAYU NAGAR, OLAVAKKODE
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678002.
BY ADVS.
SAJI KURIACHAN
M.R.NANDAKUMAR
JAYAPRAKASH NARAYANAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
CIVIL STATION P.O.
PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN - 678001.
2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001.
BY ADV.SRI.S.GOPINATHAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.41951/2023
:2:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.41951 of 2023
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner, who is an applicant for Arms
licence, is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P2 and
direct the 1st respondent-District Magistrate to grant licence
to the petitioner to hold additional weapons.
2. The petitioner states that he has applied for grant
of Arms licence as per Ext.P1. The 2 nd respondent-District
Police Chief reported that the petitioner is not facing
imminent threat to his life or property and that the petitioner
is having a Fire Arm in his name. Based on the said report of
the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent rejected the
application of the petitioner as per Ext.P2.
3. The petitioner states that the 1 st respondent has
passed Ext.P2 order on the basis of Ext.P3 Circular dated
14.09.2010. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 order of the
1st respondent is against the provisions of the Arms Act and
Rules. The 1st respondent has no authority to deny grant of
additional weapon to the petitioner. The 1 st respondent has
not considered the requirement and need of the petitioner.
Ext.P2 is therefore liable to be quashed.
4. The Government Pleader entered appearance and
resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is
submitted that on receiving the application from the District
Collector, the same was forwarded to the Station House
Officer for enquiry and report. The Station House Officer
reported that the petitioner is not facing imminent threat. The
petitioner already holds a Fire Arm licence.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader representing the
respondents.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is already
holding a Fire Arms licence. The petitioner has submitted
Ext.P1 application under Section 3(2) of the Arms Act, 1959
for additional weapon to the existing licence. It appears that
the application was rejected as per Ext.P2 based on Ext.P3
Circular dated 14.09.2010.
7. Ext.P2 would indicate that the application of the
petitioner is rejected also on the basis of a report of the
District Police Chief which indicated that nothing could be
collected substantiating the request for acquisition of
additional Fire Arm by the petitioner. The District Magistrate
came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not facing
imminent threat to hold two weapons. From the pleadings of
the case, it is seen that the petitioner is member of the
Palakkad District Rifle Association. Ext.P7 is a certificate
issued by the Palakkad District Rifle Association to this
effect.
8. Ext.P8 certificate would indicate that the petitioner
is active life member of the Palakkad District Rifle
Association and that he is a shooter who practices at
Palakkad District Rifle Association Range regularly.
9. This Court has held in the judgment in Chandran
Nair v. Additional District Magistrate [2015 (1) KHC 351]
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 the case of the petitioner, apart
from the requirement of Arms licence to protect his life, the
petitioner is a member of the Palakkad District Rifle
Association. The petitioner is a shooter who practices at
Palakkad District Rifle Association Range regularly. These
aspects are not seen considered by the District Magistrate in
Ext.P2 order, which is solely based on a report given by the
District Police Chief.
10. In the facts of the case, I am of the view that the
District Magistrate shall consider the application submitted by
the petitioner afresh in the light of Chandran Nair (supra)
and also in the light of Exts.P6 to P8 documents.
11. Ext.P2 is therefore set aside. The 1 st respondent
is directed to reconsider Ext.P1 application submitted by the
petitioner taking into account the judgment of this Court in
Chandran Nair (supra) and taking into consideration Exts.P6
to P8 documents.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/13.05.2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41951/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
23.09.2023.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.11.2023.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.76689/F1/09/HONE DATED 14-09-2010.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)
NO. 25770 OF 2016 DATED 04RO8-2016.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
20.10.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.24416 OF
2022.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST MADE
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2023 SUBMITTED
BY THE APPELLANT/ PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO
THE APPLICANT/PETITIONER BY THE
PALAKKAD DISTRICT RIFLE ASSOCIATION
DATED 15.01.2023.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
25.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT RIFLE
ASSOCIATION TO THE
APPLICANT/PETITIONER.
