K. Narayanan v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram; Additional District Magistrate, Kannur; District Magistrate/District Collector, Kannur; Station House Officer, Peringome Police Station, Kannur District

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **WA.No.2053 OF 2019** ## **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 40635/2017(D) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT:** **K.NARAYANAN, AGED 72 YEARS S/O. KANNAN, THAVIDISSERY, PORAKUNNU P.O., M.M. BAZAR (VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670306.** **BY ADVS. SHRI.JAWAHAR JOSE SMT.CISSY MATHEWS SRI.SARUN RAJAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANNUR-670001.** - **3 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR-670001.** - **4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT-670356.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR.GP.SRI.TEKCHAND** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-10-2019, THE COURT ON 08-11-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **C.K. ABDUL REHIM,** ## **& ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =** **W.A.No.2053 of 2019** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of November, 2019** ## **JUDGMENT** ## Anu Sivaraman, J. - 1.This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in the writ petition against the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition. - 2.Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader. - 3.The appellant, who claimed to be a businessman and an agriculturist, held a valid gun licence and had submitted an application for renewal of the same. The application for renewal was initially rejected by Exhibit P2 order. By Exhibit P4, the 1[st] respondent allowed the statutory appeal and directed the reconsideration of the application for renewal in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Chandran Nair v. Additional District Magistrate, Kasaragod. [2015 W.A..No.2053/19 3 (1) KLT 41]. Thereafter, Exhibit P5 order was passed by the 3[rd] respondent rejecting the request for renewal stating that the report of the District Police Chief revealed that a vulnerable law and order situation exists in the police station limit and there is presence of Maoist elements in the area. It was, therefore, held that if the licence is renewed, there is possibility of weapon reaching the hands of extremist elements which is a grave threat to public safety. The operative portion of Exhibit P5 reads as follows: “District Police Chief objected to granting of licence not merely on the ground of personal threat perception, but also on account of vulnerable law and order situations exist in the station limit and presence of Maoist elements in the area. Hence, if the licence is renewed, there is possibility of weapon reaching into the hands of extremist elements which is a grave threat to public safety. In these circumstances, I am convinced that there is no need of revoking the ADM's order, cancelling the licence. So, application is hereby rejected on the basis of Section 14(1)(b)(ii) of Arms Act, 1959 (where the licencing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence).” 4.The said order was challenged by the appellant in the writ petition on the ground that this Court had repeatedly held that W.A..No.2053/19 4 an applicant for renewal of licence need not establish any threat to life or property to get his Arms licence renewed. Referring to the provisions of Sections 13 to 15 of the Arms Act, 1959 (the Act for short), it was contended that once a licence is granted, the same shall be renewed from time to time, unless there exists a ground for refusal referable to Section 14. It was further contended that the subjective satisfaction of authorities under the Act that there is threat to public peace or public safety cannot be relied upon to reject the application for renewal of licence. However, after considering the rival contentions, the learned single Judge declined to interfere with Exhibit P5 on the ground that, in view of the conclusion arrived at by the District Magistrate after considering all relevant aspects, it is not justiciable for this Court to exercise the power of judicial review. 5.The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the provisions of the statute to contend that an application for renewal of Arms licence can be rejected only on the grounds referable to the reasons stated under Section 14 of the Act. It is stated W.A..No.2053/19 5 that in view of the clear provisions of the Act, the refusal to renew the licence on the subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority is completely unjustifiable. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on a decision of the High Court of Karnataka in G.Lakshman v. State of Karnataka [ILR 1987 Kar 2177]. It is stated that on a combined reading of Sections 2(a), 5,13,14 and 15 of the Act, the licensing authority can refuse to renew a licence only if it is satisfied that the applicant is, for any reason, unfit for a licence under the Act and where the licensing authority “deems it necessary” for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. It was held that the expression 'deem it necessary' has to be given its proper meaning, taking note of the context in which it appears in the statute and a definite finding should be rendered that for the security of public peace and public safety, the licence should not be renewed. Relying on the precedent law, it was held that the words 'reason to believe' and 'deem it necessary' used in the statue have to be given proper meaning taking the context in which they are used. The decision of the the Apex Court in Tata W.A..No.2053/19 6 Chemicals Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Jamnagar [(2015) 11 SCC 628] is relied on in support of this contention. Relying on the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Ilam Singh v. Commissioner, Meerut Division and others [1987 All LJ 416]; of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Badshah alias Taj Mohammad vs. State of M.P. and another [ 2007(4) MP LJ 527]; of the Allahabad High Court in Sangat Singh v. Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital and others [1992 KHC 1368]; of the Madras High Court in The Commissioner of Police, Chennai v. V.P. Kalairajan [LAWS (MAD) 2008 9 72], the learned counsel for the appellant contends that renewal of Arms licence can be rejected only on the specific ground provided in the statute and that the expression 'deems it necessary' or 'reason to believe' do not mean a subjective satisfaction of the renewing authority and there must be real material to hold that the reasons stated exist. 6.The learned Government Pleader would submit that the provisions of the Act specifically provide for rejection of an W.A..No.2053/19 7 application for licence or for renewal on the reasons stated in Section 14. It is stated that where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for the public safety to refuse the grant or renewal, it is well within the powers of the licensing authority to refuse the same. It is stated that since a vulnerable law and order situation exists in the station limit due to the presence of Maoist elements in the area, it was apprehended that the renewal of the licence would increase the possibility of the weapon reaching the hands of extremist elements, which is a grave threat to public safety. It is stated that in the above circumstances, the refusal to renew the licence was on account of concern of public safety and was perfectly justified. 7.We have considered the contentions advanced at considerable length. Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 reads as follows:- “14. **Refusal of licences** – (1) Notwithstanding anything in Section 13, licensing authority, shall refuse to grant- - (a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5, where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited W.A..No.2053/19 8 ammunition; (b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II, – (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe: (1) to be prohibited by this Act or any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or (2) to be of unsound mind, or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or (ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. (2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property. (3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.” 8. It has been held by this Court that the reasons stated in Section 14 are the only reasons on which a renewal of licence can be rejected. The contentions of the licensing authority is to the W.A..No.2053/19 9 effect that the renewal of the licence was rejected on the ground of security of public peace or for public safety. The reason stated is the presence of Maoist elements in the police station limit. Several High Courts, including this Court, has repeatedly considered the issue of renewal of Arms licence in terms of Section 15 of the Act. This Court in Chandran Nair's case (supra) has held that, a refusal to renew a license can only be on the grounds as enumerated under Section 14. The Allahabad High Court has held that a vague allegation with regard to concerns of security of public peace or public safety will not do duty and that there has to be a clear indication that the rejection of the renewal is necessary to secure public peace. The Karnataka High Court has considered the specific provisions and after examining the precedents on the point in detail, held that the words 'deem it necessary' in Section 14 implies a clear finding as to the necessity to reject renewal for “securing” public peace. It was held that the satisfaction of the licensing authority cannot be a subjective satisfaction and the reasons stated must disclose a clear necessity to refuse the renewal of licence. W.A..No.2053/19 10 9. The reasons stated in the impugned order are completely vague and devoid of any specifics with regard to the situation prevalent in the police station limits. It can, therefore, only be concluded that the satisfaction recorded as to the necessity of not renewing the licence is only a subjective satisfaction entered into for the purpose of denying the licence. No specific instance of any licensed fire arm having been appropriated by any anti-social elements or terrorist groups has been adverted to. Such a subjective exercise for rejection of renewal of licences is not contemplated by the statute. The licensing authority cannot transgress the limits of the power conferred by the statue. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the rejection of the licence on the ground of necessity of securing public peace and public safety was completely unjustified in the instant case. Going by the clear terms of the statute, we are of the opinion that the licence ought to have been renewed by the licensing authority. In view of the remand once ordered by the appellate authority through Exhibit P4 order and the failure occurred to consider the W.A..No.2053/19 11 matter in the real perspective as directed, we do not think it necessary to relegate the appellant again to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. There will be a direction to the 3[rd] respondent to consider the application for renewal of the Arms licence of the appellant and to allow it. Orders shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- **C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE** sd/- **ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE** sj W.A..No.2053/19 12 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINTHATTA VILLAGE. (WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION)** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED NIL BEARING NUMBER DDIS-2016/11162/13/D3.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/02/2017 IN WPC NO.3226/2017.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/04/2017 OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER (WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION).** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/12/2017 OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANNUR.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/01/2017 IN WPC NO.40621/2016.** - **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17/01/2018 FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.(WITH ITS TRANSLATION)** - **ANNEXURE R1 B TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 12/01/2018 FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR (WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION)** - **ANNEXURE R1 C TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19/01/2018 FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION)** True copy PS to Judge