IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36208 of 2010(A)
1. M.D.BABY, MANGALATHUMANNIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.SEBASTIAN PHILIP
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :07/12/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 36208 of 2010 A
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a person of Indian origin, who has
subsequently acquired citizenship of the United States of
America. According to the petitioner, on the strength of Visa
he has obtained, since 2002 he has been residing in
Pathanamthitta district of Kerala State. Petitioner was issued
an arms licence, which was also renewed subsequently.
2. However, in 2009, when the petitioner made an
application for renewal of his arms licence, that was rejected
by Ext.P4 order passed by the third respondent, stating mainly
that the Arms Act and Rules do not have any provision for
issuing licence to foreign citizens. It is also stated that a
citizen of a foreign country can be permitted to import arms for
the purpose of sports only. On that basis, the application for
renewal was declined and the petitioner was ordered to
surrender his gun.
W.P.(C) No.36208/10
: 2 :
3. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, petitioner filed an
appeal before the second respondent. The appeal was also
rejected by Ext.P6 order. In Ext.P6 order, it is stated that,
under the scheme of the Arms Act, 1959, licence is usually
granted for crop protection and self protection and that in the
appeal, the petitioner has not explained for what he needed
the weapon. Further, it is also stated that he has not
mentioned that there is any threat for his life or property. It is
in these circumstances, challenging the aforesaid order, this
writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondents
to renew Ext.P2 licence issued to the petitioner.
4. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959, no
distinction is made among Indian citizens and others for the
grant of arms licence. Counsel also placed reliance on the
judgment reported in Ashok kumar Harakchand Shab Vs.
State of Gujarat [2000 (3) KLT SN Case No.45] to
substantiate this plea.
W.P.(C) No.36208/10
: 3 :
5. Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959, provides for
grant of licenses. Section 13(3) of the Act, being relevant,
reads as follows:-
“S.13(3). The licensing authority shall
grant –
(a) a licence under section 3 where
the licence is required-
(i) by a citizen of India in respect of a
smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less
than twenty inches in length to be used for
protection or sport or in respect of a muzzle
loading gun to be used for bona fide crop
protection:
Provided that where having regard to
the circumstances of any case, the licensing
authority is satisfied that a muzzle loading
gun will not be sufficient for crop protection,
the licensing authority may grant a licence in
respect of any other smooth bore gun as
aforesaid for such protection; or
(ii) in respect of a point 22 bore rifle
or an air rifle to be used for target practice by
a member of a rifle club or rifle association
W.P.(C) No.36208/10
: 4 :licensed or recognised by the Central
Government;
(b) a licence under section 3 in any
other case or a licence under section 4,
section 5, section 6, section 10 or section 12, if
the licensing authority is satisfied that the
person by whom the licence is required has a
good reason for obtaining the same.”
6. In so far as the case in hand is concerned, the
contention of the petitioner is that he needs the weapon for
self protection. In my view, if the requirement of gun is for self
protection, the claim will have to be dealt with section 13(3)(a)
(i). A reading of this provision shows that, for self protection
and crop protection, licence can be granted only to citizens of
India. Counsel for the petitioner relied on Clause (b) and
contended that the said provision did not distinguish between
the citizens of the country and others. I am inclined to think
that a combined reading of entire section 13(3) would show
that, cases of self protection and crop protection are outside
the purview of Clause (b). If that be so, the request of the
W.P.(C) No.36208/10
: 5 :
petitioner is liable to be rejected.
7. A reading of the judgment relied on by the counsel
for the petitioner also, in my view, recognises the aforesaid
view because that judgment itself lays down that what is
discernible from the provisions of the Act is that there is no
express or implied ban or restriction against the consideration
of application for licence on the basis of citizenship except as
provided in Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act.
8. Therefore, in my view, the authorities cannot be
faulted for the view they have taken in the impugned orders.
Writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge