Arakka Hamza v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946** **WP(C) NO. 24068 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **ARAKKA HAMZA AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM HAJI, ARAKKAHOUSE, VELLAMUNDA, KATTAYAD P.O. WAYANAD., PIN – 670 731** **BY ADV M.C.JOHN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, (REVENUE) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.** - **2 THE COMMISSIONER (LAND REVENUE) PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 014.** - **3 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE(DISTRICT COLLECTOR) COLLECTORATE, WAYANAD., PIN – 670 121.** - **4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD, PIN – 671 121.** - **5 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER NORTH WAYANAD DIVISION, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD, PIN – 671 121.** **BY ADV SREEJITH V.S, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.24068/2022 : 2 : ## **N. NAGARESH, J.** ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` ## W.P.(C) No.24068 of 2022 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` _Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2024_ ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The petitioner states that he is a planter and a businessman and considering the threat and danger faced by the petitioner, the 3[rd] respondent-District Magistrate had issued a gun licence to the petitioner as early in the year 2001. Ext.P1 licence dated 18.06.2001 was renewed periodically till the year 2011. 2. The petitioner states that when application was made for renewal beyond the period of 2011, the Divisional Forest Officer submitted a report that cases were registered against the petitioner under the Forests Act during the year 1996. The application of the petitioner submitted on 27.05.2011 was rejected by the 3[rd] respondent-District W.P.(C) No.24068/2022 : 3 : Magistrate. The petitioner therefore preferred appeal before the 2[nd] respondent. By Ext.P3 order dated 21.08.2018, the 2[nd] respondent allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the 3[rd] respondent. The licence was renewed by the 3[rd] respondent as per Ext.P4 order dated 12.03.2020. 3. As the licence period was due to expire on 12.03.2021, the petitioner again submitted application for renewal of licence paying requisite fee. The 3[rd] respondent again called for reports. The 5[th] respondent-Divisional Forest Officer reported that there is a chance of misuse of licence by the petitioner. The Vellamunda police reported that no criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. The 3[rd] respondent passed Ext.P7 order dated 29.06.2022 accepting the report of the 5[th] respondent and rejecting renewal. It is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order of the 3[rd] respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner for renewal of Arms licence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 4. The counsel for the petitioner argued that Section 15(3) of the Arms Act categorically provides that every W.P.(C) No.24068/2022 : 4 : licence shall, unless the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing, otherwise decides, in any case be renewable for the same period for which the licence was originally granted. The respondents have no case that after grant of licence, any case is registered against the petitioner. 5. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that none of the circumstances enumerated in Section 14 of the Arms Act exists for not renewing the licence. In the facts of the case, Ext.P7 order is liable to be quashed and the 3[rd] respondent is compellable to renew the licence granted to the petitioner. 6. The 5[th] respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 5[th] respondent submitted that as many as 9 cases were registered against the petitioner in Mananthavady Range. The cases related to illicit collection, possession and transportation of forest produces. The petitioner was convicted in two crimes in Mananthavady Range. The petitioner is a regular offender in forest cases and there is possibility that the petitioner will commit offences again. W.P.(C) No.24068/2022 : 5 : 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 8. The petitioner was initially granted gun licence as early as in the year 2001. The gun licence was issued after making necessary enquiries. The licence was renewed during 2002-2003, 2003-2005, 2005-2008 and 2008-2011. The renewal of licence was first denied to the petitioner in the year 2011. The denial was based on a report submitted by the 5[th] respondent to the effect that cases were registered against the petitioner under the Forests Act. 9. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said denial. The 2[nd] respondent thereupon passed Ext.P3 order. Considering the fact that all 9 cases against the petitioner are already adjudicated, the 2[nd] respondent-Appellate Authority found that the petitioner's request for renewal should be reconsidered. The 3[rd] respondent thereupon passed Ext.P4 order renewing the petitioner's licence for a period of one year from 12.03.2020. W.P.(C) No.24068/2022 : 6 : 10. When the petitioner sought for renewal again, the 3[rd] respondent has rejected the application finding that the petitioner was involved in 9 cases and was convicted in two cases. 11. The numbers of 9 cases based on which the petitioner has been denied renewal of licence, are enumerated in Ext.R5(a) communication dated 03.10.2019 of the 5[th] respondent-Divisional Forest Officer. Ext.R5(a) would indicate that the incidents relating to 10 of the cases were of between the years 1996 and 1999. In the 11[th] case, where occurrence is in the year 2007, the petitioner was acquitted. 12. It is to be noted that the petitioner was granted licence initially in the year 2001. Therefore, all cases now projected for non-renewal of gun licence were of the years preceding the issuance of gun licence. The only other case, where the occurrence was in the year 2007, resulted in acquittal of the petitioner as can be seen from Ext.R5(a). Therefore, the 3[rd] respondent ought not have rejected the application for renewal of gun licence of the petitioner on the W.P.(C) No.24068/2022 : 7 : basis of offences reported much prior to the initial grant of gun licence. 13. A perusal of Exts.P3 and P7 would indicate that rejection of the applications for renewal of gun licence in both the occasions was based on the same reasons. Ext.P3 order of the 3[rd] respondent rejecting the application for renewal was interfered by the Appellate Authority and was remitted back. As per Ext.P3, the Appellate Authority directed the 3[rd] respondent to reconsider the matter. The 3[rd] respondent thereupon issued Ext.P4 order of renewal. However, for the same reasons for rejection which were found to be unsustainable earlier, the 3[rd] respondent has again passed Ext.P7 order rejecting the Arms licence. 14. This Court in the judgment in _**Chandran Nair v. Additional District Magistrate** [2015 (1) KHC 351]_ has held that once a licence is granted under the Arms Act, 1959, the same shall be renewed from time to time unless there exists a ground for refusal as enumerated under Section 14 of the Act. In the case of the petitioner, no such ground has been W.P.(C) No.24068/2022 : 8 : stated. For the said reason also, Ext.P7 order is unsustainable. 15. Ext.P7 is therefore set aside. The 3[rd] respondent is directed to take up the petitioner's application referred to in Ext.P7 and pass order afresh on the application for renewal of Ext.P1 licence. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/06.06.2024 W.P.(C) No.24068/2022 : 9 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24068/2022** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** - **Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE GUN LICENCE NO. 1026/MTDY DATED 18.06.2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 18.09.2008 IN CRL. M.C. NO. 836/2006 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** - **Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. LRA (5) 15489/17 DATED 21.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT** - **Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DCWD/2508/2018/MI (KDIS) DATED 12.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 19.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE VELLAMUNDA POLICE** - **Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN DATED 19.02.2022** - **Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DCWYD/5401/2021-MI DATED 29.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE VELLAMUNDA POLICE UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT** - **Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTED CASE 2015(1) KLT 41 (CHANDRAN NAIR VS ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE)** - **RESPONDENT's EXHIBIT** **Exhibit R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO G-3200-2019 DATED 03.10.2019 Exhibit R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO-G-3398-2021 DATED 04.12.2021**