High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of; Ext.P3 and Ext.P5 se...

Jomon George v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023
Neutral Citation:2025:KER:26396

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Harisankar V. Menon
Judgment Date
2025-03-27
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is disposed of; Ext.P3 and Ext.P5 are set aside. The 4th respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P1 (the application) with specific reference to Aboobaker V.T. (2022 (2) KHC 170) and the judgment in W.P(C) No.9686 of 2024, dated 14.08.2024, as well as the interim order dated 21.12.2022 in W.P(C) No.19708 of 2022, and to do so expeditiously, within eight weeks from today, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and in accordance with the statutory framework of Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 2016.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of; Ext.P3 and Ext.P5 set aside; 4th respondent to reconsider Ext.P1 within eight weeks after hearing, guided by the cited precedents and interim order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Jomon George

Respondents

  • State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Land Revenue Commissioner, Office of the Land Revenue Commissioner, Public Office Building, Museum Junction, Thiruvananthapuram
  • District Collector, Collectorate, Kozhikode District
  • Additional District Magistrate, Collectorate, Kozhikode District
  • Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode District
  • Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thamassery, Kozhikode District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Saji Kuriachan
  • • M.R.Nandakumar
  • • Jayaprakash Narayanan
  • • Arjun Anil

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Senior Government Pleader, Sri.E.G.Gordon

Case Synopsis & Summary

Jomon George, an agriculturist, filed W.P.(C) No.20685 of 2023 challenging the denial of an Arms Licence under the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 2016. He produced Ext.P1, the application, and Ext.P2, a training certificate. Ext.P3 shows that the 4th respondent rejected the application citing Section 13(3)(b); Ext.P5 records dismissal of the appeal by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner contends that the embargo under Section 13(3)(b) cannot apply to applications under Section 13(3)(a) and that training certificates should be accepted, especially in light of government policy and prior interim orders. He relies on the Division Bench decision in Aboobaker V.T. and Others v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and Others (2022 (2) KHC 170), which held that licensing under Section 13(3)(a) is not bound by the embargo of 13(3)(b). The petitioner also points to a similar line of reasoning in W.P(C) No.9686 of 2024, dated 14.08.2024, which recognized training-based licensing, and an interim order dated 21.12.2022 in W.P(C) No.19708 of 2022. The court notes that Exts.P3 and P5 do not align with these precedents. Accordingly, it sets aside Ext.P3 and Ext.P5 and directs the 4th respondent to reconsider Ext.P1 in light of the cited authorities and the interim order, after hearing, and to do so within eight weeks. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Arms Act, 1959Arms Rules, 2016Section 13(3)(b) of the Arms ActSection 13(3)(a) of the Arms ActRule 10(1) of the Arms Rules, 2016

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the training certificate (Ext.P2) should be accepted for licensing under Section 13(3)(a), relying on the Division Bench decision in Aboobaker V.T. and Others and on interim orders/Judgments recognizing training-based licensing. He urges reconsideration of Ext.P3 and Ext.P5 in light of these precedents and government policy.

Contentions of Respondents

State respondents argue that the training certificate cannot be accepted and that the embargo in Section 13(3)(b) remains applicable; Ext.P3 and Ext.P5 are in order and the application must be governed by the Arms Act provisions as interpreted by existing judgments.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Aboobaker V.T. and others v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and Others2022 (2) KHC 170PositiveDivision Bench held that for applications under Section 13(3)(a) the embargo under Section 13(3)(b) cannot be applied.
W.P(C) No.9686 of 2024W.P(C) No.9686 of 2024PositiveSingle Judge's judgment in similar circumstances recognized training-based licensing and the government’s decision; cited to support reconsideration.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Jomon George v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

1 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 `2025:KER:26396` ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 20685OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` JOMON GEORGE, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE, EDATHUKAIKKAL HOUSE, PULIKKAYAM, KODANCHERRY, NELLIPOYIL, MEMUTTY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673580. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SAJI KURIACHAN M.R.NANDAKUMAR(K/1657/1995) JAYAPRAKASH NARAYANAN(K/197/2015) ARJUN ANIL(K/000637/2021) ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** |**`1`**|**`STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY`**| |---|---| ||**`TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT`**| ||**`SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.`**| |**`2`**|**`THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,`**| ||**`OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,`**| ||**`PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION,`**| ||**`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033.`**| |**`3`**|**`THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,`**| ||**`OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,`**| ||**`KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673001.`**| |**`4`**|**`THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,`**| ||**`COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673001.`**| 2 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 `2025:KER:26396` - **`5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673001 .`** - **`6 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THAMASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673573.`** ``` BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.E.G.GORDEN ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 `2025:KER:26396` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, an agriculturist, submitted Ext.P1 application for licence under the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 2016. Along with the application, the petitioner had also produced a certificate of training as evidenced by Ext.P2. However, by Ext.P3, the application stood rejected by the 4[th] respondent herein, with reference to the provisions of Section 13(3)(b) of the Arms Act. Though an appeal was filed, the appeal was also dismissed by the 2[nd] respondent herein as evidenced by Ext.P5. 2. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner filed the captioned writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri.Saji Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned Senior Government Pleader. 4. The sustainability or otherwise of the orders at Exts.P3 and P5 is the issue arising for consideration in this writ petition. The petitioner's application for a licence under the statute was 4 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 `2025:KER:26396` rejected, citing the provisions of Section 13(3)(b) of the Arms Act. The respondents argue that the training certificate produced cannot be accepted. 5. In this connection, I notice that a Division Bench of this Court in **Aboobaker V.T. and others v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and Others [2022** **(2) KHC 170]** has considered the provisions of Section 13 of the Arms Act, with reference to the issue of the licence under the statute and found that if the application is one being made under Section 13(3)(a), the embargo under Section 13(3)(b) cannot be made applicable. Furthermore, I notice that with reference to the acceptability of the training certificate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the interim order issued by this Court dated 21.12.2022 in W.P(C) No.19708 of 2022 to contend that if the certificate in the nature of Ext.P2 is being relied on, the same can be acted upon. However, I find that in Exts.P3 and P5, the nature of the consideration made is not in tune with the dictum laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to above. 5 W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 `2025:KER:26396` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** This Court also notices that the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(C) No.9686 of 2024, as per judgment dated 14.08.2024, has considered almost similar circumstances based on the certificate of training produced by the applicant and has found as under: “10. The petitioner's application for Arms Licence for Sports purpose stands rejected on the ground that the certificate produced by the petitioner is insufficient. In Ext.P14 judgment, it is noted that in the matter of Arms Licence, there was an insistence that the training should be under the guidance of the police authorities, which condition was taken away by the Government itself as per letter dated 08.03.2023 and that the Government has taken a decision that Arms Licence should be issued on the basis of a Training Certificate issued by the accredited trainer/master accredited trainer. 11. Exts.P8, P9 and P10 are the certificates produced by the petitioner in the matter of training. Ext.P8 has been issued by a Weapon Trainer stating that the petitioner was imparted reasonable working knowledge of important provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 2016, relevant to him and made to understand responsibilities of the Arms, owner, or user, particularly in relation to children. The Weapon Trainer has certified that the petitioner has completed the training as stipulated under Rule 10(1) of the Arms Rules, 2016. Ext.P8 6 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 `2025:KER:26396` issued by the Weapon Trainer also indicates that the petitioner has attended weapon training, weapon handling, weapon maintenance and weapon safekeeping and firing technique. The trainer who has issued Ext.P8 certificate is for empanelled shooter and national level shooter. The qualification of the trainer is evident from Ext.P8. In the circumstances, respondents 2 and 3 are not justified in declining Arms Licence to the petitioner on the ground that the Training Certificates produced by the petitioner are insufficient.” In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration, at the hands of the 4[th] respondent herein. So as to facilitate the afore, Ext.P5 issued by the 2[nd] respondent and Ext.P3 issued by the 4[th] respondent is _set aside_ . The 4[th] respondent is directed to consider Ext.P1 application filed by the petitioner, with specific reference to the law laid down by this Court in **Aboobaker V. T. and others v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and Others [2022** **(2) KHC 170]** , as well as the judgment of this Court in W.P(C) No.9686 of 2024 dated 14.08.2024 and the interim order dated 21.12.2022 in W.P(C) No.19708 of 2022, as expeditiously as 7 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 `2025:KER:26396` possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from today, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- **HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE** ln 8 W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 `2025:KER:26396` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20685/2023`** ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL THUS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TRAINING CERTIFICATE DATED 2/12/2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. ``` - **`EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. D3736/2022 DATED 26/10/2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`** - **`EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 5/1/2023 THUS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`** - **`EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/4/2023 THUS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`** - **`EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 4/12/2023 IN WPC 25530/2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.`** - **`EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 21/12/2022 IN WPC NO. 19708/2022.`** ``` RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: ``` - **`EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F1/432/2022 DATED 24/12/2022 BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME (F)DEPARTMENT.`** ``` EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO F15/2023 DATED 29/05/2023 BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME (F) DEPARTMENT. ``` 9 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 `2025:KER:26396` ``` EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO-D2/6527/2022/DR DATED 11-03-2022 OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF. EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.5246/2023 DATED 25/07/2023 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY KODENCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 19/07/2023 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER. ```