High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-01-20Writ petition allowed; Exts.P4 and P5 quashed; ...

MUHAMMED SHAFI.A. v. District Collector, Malappuram; Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Perinthalmanna; Additional District Magistrate, Malappuram

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C). No. 37679/2010

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V. Chitambaresh
Judgment Date: 2012-01-20
Court Decision / Holding: I therefore quash Exts.P4 and P5 and direct the first respondent District Magistrate to reconsider Ext.P1 application for arms licence strictly within the parameters of the Act. The writ petition is allowed; no costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Exts.P4 and P5 quashed; District Magistrate to reconsider Ext.P1 application strictly within the parameters of the Arms Act; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

MUHAMMED SHAFI.A.

Respondents

The District Collector, Malappuram
The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Perinthalmanna
The Additional District Magistrate, Malappuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SMT.K.V.RESHMI

Counsels for Respondents

• GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.T. LILLY

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, in W.P.(C) No. 37679/2010 (H), examines the decision to grant a licence under Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 to Muhammed Shafi A. for a .22 bore Remington rifle for self-protection. Ext.P1 is the licence application, with reports from the District Police and Divisional Forest Officer indicating no objections from security and environmental standpoints. The District Magistrate, acting as licensing authority, rejected the application by Ext.P4, citing two grounds: neighbors’ unfavourable opinion and the applicant’s lack of land ownership. The appellate Ext.P5 confirms the denial. The petitioner challenged the concurrent denials under Article 226. The court analyzes Sections 13 and 14: while Section 13(2A) authorises the licensing authority to seek reports, such Tahsildar notes cannot trump the police and forest reports where no past crime is shown. Section 14 guards against refusals based solely on property ownership. The court cites Ranjith Singh v. Union of India for the entitlement to consider licences under statutory criteria, and V.K.Thomas v. Revenue Board for the need for cautious exercise of licensing power for deadly arms. Finding a lack of mindless application of law, the court quashes Exts.P4 and P5 and directs reconsideration strictly within the Act’s parameters. The petition is allowed; no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Arms Act, 1959 - Section 3Arms Act, 1959 - Section 13Arms Act, 1959 - Section 13(2A)Arms Act, 1959 - Section 14Constitution of India, Article 226

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Licensing for deadly arms should be done with great care, caution and circumspection.
An applicant for a licence is entitled to have it considered in accordance with the terms of the statute and the criteria set forth in it.
Non-application of mind in licensing decisions invalidates the decision.
Lack of property cannot be the sole ground to deny licence; the Act requires evaluation within statutory framework.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he sought a licence under Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 for possession of a .22 bore Remington rifle for self-protection. Exts. P2 and P3 show police and forest reports without objection; Ext. P4 shows the District Magistrate rejected the application, primarily on two grounds: neighbours’ adverse opinion and lack of land. It is argued that these grounds have no basis in the statute and cannot outweigh the reports of law enforcement and forest authorities. Section 13(2A) empowers the licensing authority to seek reports; Section 14 prohibits denial solely for lack of property, and no finding on public security or public peace justifies denial. The applicant relies on Ranjith Singh v. Union of India (1980) for the rule that licenses must be considered under statutory criteria, and on V.K. Thomas v. Revenue Board (1987) for caution in licensing deadly arms. The applicant prays for quashing Exts. P4 and P5 and directing District Magistrate to reconsider Ext. P1 within the Act’s parameters, noting the absence of past crime and lack of compelling public interest against grant.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the licensing authority’s refusal aligns with the statutory framework. The Tahsildar’s report raises potential public-safety concerns due to neighbour opinions, and the applicant’s lack of land cannot be the sole ground for denial. They contend the authority complied with Sec. 13(2A), considered reports from the police and forest department, and that Section 14 allows refusal where necessary for public safety. The counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate supports the decision; Ext. R1(a) shows Tahsildar's contrary note. They emphasize the licensing authority’s discretion in matters involving deadly weapons and urge upholding the rejection. The petition should be dismissed.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ranjith Singh v. Union of India	1980 (4) SCC 311	Positive	Used to emphasize entitlement to consideration of a licence under statutory criteria; non-application of mind invalidates the decision.
V.K.Thomas v. Revenue Board	1987 (2) KLT 782	Positive	Quoted to underscore need for caution and circumspection in issuing licences for deadly arms.

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 MUHAMMED SHAFI.A. v. District Collector, Malappuram; Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Perinthalmanna; Additional District Magistrate, Malappuram and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH** ## **FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/30TH POUSHA 1933** ## **WPC.No. 37679 of 2010 (H)** **---------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **-------------------** **MUHAMMED SHAFI.A.,ALIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MATTARAIKKAL POST, ARAIKKUPARAMBU, PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **--------------------** ## **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,** **MALAPPURAM-676505.** ## **2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,** ## **PERINTHALMANNA-679322.** ## **3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,** **MALAPPURAM-676505.** **R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.T. LILLY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERD THE FOLLOWING:** **svs** ## **W.P.(C). NO. 37679/2010** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27/08/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **P1(a):COPY OF THE SALE LETTER DATED 26/08/2009 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16/10/2009.** - **P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE DFO, NILAMBUR SOUTH DIVISION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14/09/2009.** - **P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF REJECTION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11/01/2010.** - **P5: COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER BY NO.LR(A)5-6455/2010 DATED 04/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE.** ## **svs** **“C.R.”** ## **V.CHITAMBARESH, J.** ------------------------------- ## **W.P.(C) No. 37679 of 2010** ------------------------------- **Dated this the 20[th] day of January, 2012** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner applied for licence for a .22 bore rifle made by Remington (USA) in terms of Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Ext.P1 is the application for arms licence in the prescribed format wherein the need projected by the petitioner is self protection. The District Magistrate who is the licensing authority called for reports from the departments of Police, Forest and Revenue. Ext.P2 is the report of the District Superintendent of Police to the effect that there is no objection in granting a licence to the petitioner from the point of view of security. Ext.P3 is the report of the Divisional Forest Officer to the effect that there is no objection in granting a licence from the point of view of forest and wild life protection. The District Magistrate however by Ext.P4 order rejected the application for licence put in by the petitioner. The said order was challenged in appeal under Section 18 of the Act to the Land Revenue Commissioner raising several grounds. Ext.P5 is the W.P.(C) No.37679 of 2010 2 order of the appellate authority confirming the order of the licensing authority disallowing the application for licence. The concurrent orders of the authorities have been challenged in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The two reasons held out against the petitioner for not granting an arms licence are the following:- - (i) The Taluk Tahsildar has reported that the neighbours in the locality have no good opinion about the petitioner. - (ii) The petitioner does not own or possess any land. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate supporting the rejection of the application for licence for reasons stated supra. The report of the Taluk Tahsildar which strikes a discordant note from the other reports has been produced as Ext.R1(a) along with the counter affidavit. I heard Advocate Smt.Rashmi.K.V. on behalf of the petitioner and the Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. 3. Section 13 of the Act deals with the grant of licences and the relevant provisions thereof are as follows:- W.P.(C) No.37679 of 2010 3 ## “ **13. Grant of Licences** - (1) ........... (2) On receipt of an application, the licensing authority shall call for the report of the officer in charge of the nearest police station on that application, and such officer shall send his report within the prescribed time. (2A) The licensing authority, after such enquiry, if any, as it may, consider necessary, and after considering the report received under sub-section (2), shall subject to other provisions of this Chapter, by order in writing either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same.” True it is that the licensing authority as part of his enquiry under Section 13(2A) of the Act may be within his powers to call for a report from the Taluk Tahsildar. All that the Taluk Tahsildar has reported is that the neighbours in the locality have no good opinion about the petitioner. Such reports of the Taluk Tahsildar cannot gain precedence over the reports of the District Superintendent of Police and Divisional Forest Officer. The report of the District Superintendent of Police obtained W.P.(C) No.37679 of 2010 4 under Section 13(2) of the Act does recommend the grant of arms licence. No specific instance of the petitioner having been involved in any crime at any point of time earlier has been reported either by the police or any other departmental officer. 4. Section 14 of the Act deals with the refusal of licences and the relevant provisions thereof are as follows:- ## “ **14. Refusal of Licences** - (1) Notwithstanding anything in Section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant - (a) ................ (b)(i) ............... - (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.” Thus the mere fact that the petitioner does not own or possess any property (which admittedly stands in the name of his W.P.(C) No.37679 of 2010 5 mother only) is not a reason enough to deny arms licence. There is also no finding by the authorities that it is expedient to refuse arms licence 'for the security of public peace or for public safety'. 5. The Act expressly contemplates the grant of licence for a person to acquire, possess or carry any fire arm or ammunition in accordance with the provisions thereof. The Supreme Court dealing with a case of rejection of application for manufacture of arms under the Act held in **Ranjith Singh v. Union of India** (1980 (4) SCC 311) as follows:- “An applicant for a licence is entitled to have it considered in accordance with the terms of the statute and to press for its grant on the basis of the criteria set forth in it.” A total non application of mind is well evident in the instant case and the authorities have refused licence for reasons not justifiable by the provisions of the Act. I should bear in mind that licence to possess a fire arm should not be granted for the mere asking in view of the inherent danger posed by it. This W.P.(C) No.37679 of 2010 6 Court in **V.K.Thomas v. Revenue Board** (1987 (2) KLT 782) had occasion to observe as follows:- “It needs no reiteration that the issue of licences for possessing deadly arms should be done with great care and caution and with greater circumspection and fuller realisation of the changed times.” I therefore quash Exts.P4 and P5 and direct the first respondent District Magistrate to reconsider Ext.P1 application for arms licence strictly within the parameters of the Act. 6. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. **V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.** nj. **V.CHITAMBARESH, J.** -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.37679 of 2010 ## **JUDGMENT** Dated:- 20[th] January, 2012 --------------------------------------