IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3023 of 2011(C)
1. JACOB T KOSHY VAIDHYAN, THENGUMVILAYIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
4. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :31/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 3023 of 2011 C
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner was granted Arms licence No.1/92/KNR
for possessing one DBBL-12 bore gun. The licence was
renewed periodically and Ext.P6 is the order dated 03-02-
2007, issued by the second respondent, renewing the licence
on the last occasion. On expiry of the said renewed licence,
petitioner again submitted his application for renewal.
2. On that application, Ext.P2 report was submitted by
the Superintendent of Police, stating that there is no threat for
his agriculture crops from wild animals and, therefore, there is
no need to renew the arms licence. Acting entirely upon
Ext.P2 and without conducting any enquiry of his own, the
Additional District Magistrate issued Ext.P3 order, refusing
renewal of licence. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for
the petitioner, the view taken by the ADM in Ext.P3 is
unsustainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in
W.P.(C) No.3023/2011
: 2 :
Ganesh Prasad Vs. Board of Revenue (LR) [2005 (2) KLT
645].
3. Be that as it may, petitioner filed an appeal before
the Land Revenue Commissioner and that appeal was
rejected by Ext.P5 order. In Ext.P5 order, it is stated that
there is nothing in the records to show that the crops are
suspectable to attack by wild animals which necessitates
holding of a weapon. It is on this ground, the appeal has
been rejected.
4. Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner
is that, in Ext.P6 order issued in 2007, the requirement to hold
the weapon for protection of his crops has been clearly found
and that in the absence of any change of situation, the
second respondent was not justified in taking the view as is
reflected in Ext.P5. It is also the contention of the counsel for
the petitioner that, if the second respondent had called upon
the petitioner, he would have produced materials to
substantiate his contention that he requires the weapon.
W.P.(C) No.3023/2011
: 3 :
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader, I am inclined to think
that the matter needs re-examination. This is for the reason
that in Ext.P5, no reference is made to Ext.P6 order or that
the petitioner was called upon to produce any material to
justify his requirement. In that view of the matter, in order to
enable the second respondent to re-examine the appeal filed
by the petitioner, I quash Ext.P5. It is directed that the second
respondent will issue notice to the petitioner, hear him and
pass orders in the matter, as expeditiously as possible and at
any rate, within eight weeks from the date of production of a
copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge