High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-12-11Writ petitions disposed of; impugned orders set...

P.K. Wilson v. State of Kerala; Printo P.T. v. State of Kerala; Johnson N.J. v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
Judgment Date: 2023-12-11
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned orders denying renewal were set aside. The Court directed the District Magistrate and other authorities to reconsider all renewal applications in light of the findings and observations, ensuring opportunity for hearing, within three months from the receipt of the judgment (two months for the specific Ext. P4-related direction), and to issue fresh orders in accordance with the Arms Act, 1959.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed of; impugned orders set aside; directions to reconsider renewals issued.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.K. Wilson
Printo P.T.
Johnson N.J.

Respondents

State of Kerala
The District Magistrate, Thrissur
The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Saji Kuriachan
• Roy P. KuriaKose
• M.R. Nandakumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Preetha K.K. (Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Three writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 40434/2022, 34357/2022 and 41975/2022) from residents of Thrissur seeking renewal of arms licenses were heard together. The District Magistrate had rejected renewals based on a report indicating no threat to the petitioners’ lives. Appeals before the Land Revenue Commissioner were also dismissed, echoing the same rationale. The petitioners challenged these orders in this common judgment of the Kerala High Court, arguing that renewals must be governed by the factual and statutory framework of the Arms Act, 1959, particularly Sections 13, 14 and 15, and the interpretation given in earlier judgments that grant/refusal of licenses should be grounded on specified grounds. The court referred to Ext. P3 (the Division Bench’s reference judgment) and analyzed the relationships among Sections 13, 14 and 15. It held that for consideration of licences under 14 and 15, the provisions of Section 13(3)(b) can be invoked to determine any “good reason,” except in two specific circumstances under Section 13(3)(a)(i) and (ii) related to citizens’ high-category licenses and rifle-club licenses. The impugned orders were set aside, and the authorities were directed to reconsider all applications, providing an opportunity of hearing within three months (two months for certain orders) and in light of the above observations. The petitions were disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Arms Act, 1959 – Section 3Arms Act, 1959 – Section 4Arms Act, 1959 – Section 5Arms Act, 1959 – Section 6Arms Act, 1959 – Section 10Arms Act, 1959 – Section 12Arms Act, 1959 – Section 13Arms Act, 1959 – Section 14Arms Act, 1959 – Section 15Chapter II of Arms Act, 1959

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Non-obstante clause (Section 14)
Good reason doctrine under Section 13(3)(b)
Distinction between licences to individuals and bodies (rifle clubs/associations)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that renewals are to be considered under the comprehensive scheme of the Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 13, 14, 15) with due regard to ‘good reasons’ for renewal, and not solely on the ground of absence of threat. They asserted that, for renewal, the licensing authority must assess broader grounds under Section 13(3)(b) unless the exemptions of Section 13(3)(a) (i) and (ii) apply. The previous decisions (Muhammed Shafi and Chandran Nair) were argued to have inappropriately restricted licensing decisions to Sections 14 and 15 alone. They urged reassessment of the applications in light of the Act’s structure and the need for fair procedure, including due opportunity for hearing and a reasoned order.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the licenses could be refused based on the Government’s and District Police Chief’s assessment that there was no threat to life; thus, the orders denying renewal were consistent with the absence of risk. They maintained that the authorities had correctly applied the statutory grounds and that the petitions warranted no renewal under the cited provisions. They relied on the reports and the prior orders to justify denial.

Cited Precedents (7)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Muhammad Shafi v. District Collector	2012 (1) KLT 427	Distinguished	The Division Bench doubted the correctness of this prior ruling and clarified the interplay of Sections 13, 14, 15, especially for renewals.
Chandran Nair v. Additional District Magistrate	2015 (1) KHC 351	Distinguished	Similarly treated as not controlling renewals in the same manner; the present judgment elaborates the sections’ interplay.
W.P.(C) 1242/2016	Exhibit P3	Mentioned Only	Judgment cited as an exhibit; not analysed for this decision’s direct legal rule.
W.P.(C) 37989/2015	Exhibit P3	Mentioned Only	Judgment referenced as a supporting exhibit.
W.P.(C) 24656/2012	Exhibit P5	Mentioned Only	Judgment referenced in the appendix; not subjected to explicit treatment in this judgment.
W.P.(C) 2348/2016	Exhibit P3	Mentioned Only	Cited in context of earlier judgments; treated as background rather than controlling rule.
W.P.(C) 38165/2010	Exhibit P5	Mentioned Only	Cited in relation to prior orders; not treated as binding authority in this decision.

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 P.K. Wilson v. State of Kerala; Printo P.T. v. State of Kerala; Johnson N.J. v. State of Kerala 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 40434 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **P.K.WILSON, AGED 49 YEARS S/O KOCHAPPAN, PANJIKKARAN HOUSE, PERINCHERY P.O., THRISSUR - 680306.** **BY ADVS. SAJI KURIACHAN ROY P.KURIAKOSE M.R.NANDAKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,**| ||**HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**2**|**THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,**| ||**CIVIL STATION.P.O. THRISSUR - 680 001.**| |**3**|**THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,**| ||**PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING MUSEUM. P.O.,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 685 033.**| ||**R BY GP SMT.PREETHA K.K.**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.12.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).34357/2022, 41975/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 2 :** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 34357 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **PRINTO.P.T, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, PANAMKULATHUKARAN HOUSE, CHENGALLUR P.O., THRISSUR-682312.** **BY ADVS. SAJI KURIACHAN ROY P.KURIAKOSE M.R.NANDAKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION P.O., THRISSUR-680001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. R BY GP SMT.PREETHA K.K.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.12.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).40434/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 3 :** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 41975 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **JOHNSON N.J, AGED 56 YEARS S/O JOSE N.L, NELLISSERY HOUSE, ARANATTYKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680 618.** **BY ADVS. SAJI KURIACHAN ROY P.KURIAKOSE M.R.NANDAKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CIVIL STATION.P.O. THRISSUR-680 001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING MUSEUM. P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 685 033. R BY GP SMT.PREETHA K.K.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.12.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).40434/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 4 :** **JUDGMENT [WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022]** Since common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions filed applications for renewal of their arms licences. The 2[nd] respondent/ District Magistrate rejected the applications on the basis of the report of the District Police Chief that there is no threat to their lives. Though the petitioners preferred appeals before the Land Revenue Commissioner/3[rd] respondent, the same were also set aside reiterating the reasons stated by the primary authority. 3. Accordingly, the petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petitions and they were heard **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 5 :** together and referred to the Division Bench of this Court since the learned Single Judge doubted the correctness of the judgments of this Court in **Muhammed Shafi** v. **District Collector** [2012 (1) KLT 427] and **Chandran Nair** v. **Additional District Magistrate** [2015 (1) KHC 351] whereby it was held that grant/refusal of the fire arm licence can only be based on the grounds enumerated under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arms Act, 1959 respectively. The Division Bench in Ext.P3 judgment answered the reference as follows: “15. Therefore, one thing is clear, even for a renewal, the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 shall be taken into consideration. Insofar as Section 14 dealing with refusal of licence is concerned, it starts with a non obstante clause that notwithstanding anything **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 6 :** contained in Section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant a licence under Section 3, Section 4 or Section 5, where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition, and for the other reasons specified thereunder. 16. In our view, clause (i) of Section 3 (a) deals with licence for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition an by individual/citizen; whereas, clause (ii) of Section 3(a) deals with licence to any member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognised by the Central Government for using a firearm for target practice. 17. That apart, on an analysis of the provisions of Section 13, a clear distinction is discernible between the licences issued to the individuals, and different bodies in the matter of different firearms. **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 7 :** This we say because, Section 13 of Act, 1959 makes a clear distinction between the licences issued to the citizens and others. Section 13 reads thus: "13. Grant of licences.―(1) An application for the grant of a licence under Chapter II shall be made to the licensing authority and shall be in such form, contain such particulars and be accompanied by such fee, if any, as may be prescribed. [(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. (2-A) The licensing authority, after such inquiry, if any, as it may consider and after necessary, considering the report received under sub- section (2), shall, **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 8 :** subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, by order in writing either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same: Provided that where the officer in charge of the nearest police station does not send his report on the application within the prescribed time, the licensing authority may, if it deems fit, make such order, after the expiry of the prescribed time, without further waiting for that report.] (3) The licensing authority shall grant-- (a) a licence under section 3 where the licence is required― (i) by a citizen of India in respect of a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty inches in length to be used for protection or sport or in respect of a muzzle loading gun to be used for bona fide crop protection: Provided that where having **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 9 :** regard to the circumstances of any case, the licensing authority is satisfied that a muzzle loading gun will not be sufficient for crop protection, the licensing authority may grant a licence in respect of any other smooth bore gun as aforesaid for such protection, or (ii) in respect of a [fire-arm] to be used for target practice by a member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognised by the Central Government; (b) a licence under section 3 in any other case or a licence under section 4, section 5, section 6, section 10 or section 12, if the licensing authority is satisfied that the person by whom the licence is required has a good reason for obtaining the same." 18. Sub-Section (3)(a)(i) of Section 13 makes it clear that the shall a licensing authority grant licence under Section 3, where the **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 10 :** licence is required by a citizen of India in respect of a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty inches in length to be used for protection or sport or in respect of a muzzle loading gun to be used for bona fide crop protection. However, the proviso thereto makes it clear that in cases where having regard to the circumstances of any case, the licensing authority is satisfied that a muzzle loading gun will not be sufficient for crop protection, the licensing authority may grant a licence in respect of any other smooth bore gun as aforesaid for such protection. However Sub clause (ii) there deals with the firearms to be used for target practice by a member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognised by the Central Government. It is further clear from Section 13 (3) that in the aforesaid two circumstances, the authority shall issue a licence to the **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 11 :** applicant after making a due enquiry in contemplation of Section 13(2) and (2-A) on being satisfied for grant of the license, and therein, there is no requirement for ascertaining the good reason, as specified in clause (b) of Section 13(3). This is evident from clause (b) due to the qualifying words employed therein that "a license under Section 3 in any other case". 19. Therefore, it can be seen from clause (ii) of Section 13(3)(a) that a dealer referred to in Section 3(3) of Act, 1959 is not included there. Accordingly it is distinct and clear that the stipulation contained in clause (b) of Section 13(3) for making out a good reason, confines to a licence issued to a dealer referred to in Section 3 (3), and licenses issued under Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 10 or Section 12 of Act 1959. 20. Therefore, the citizens, a rifle club and a rifle association **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 12 :** licensed or recognised by the Central Government are excluded from the requirement of the "good reason" contained under Section 13(3)(b). True, the specification contained under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of Act, 1959 is in respect of a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty inches in length to be used for protection or sport or in respect of a muzzle loading gun to be used for bona fide crop protection. However, the proviso empowers the authority in any circumstances to vary with the imperative conditions contained under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act, 1959. 21. On a conjoint reading of Sections 13, 14 and 15, it is clear that apart from the conditions contained under Sections 14 and 15, the licensing authority is vested with powers to consider applications for grant of licence or renewal of licence into account the reasons taking **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 13 :** enumerated in Section 13 (3) (b), except the ones specified in Section 13(3)(a)(i) and (ii). Thus, on an analysis of the reference in the above manner, we come to the following conclusions: For the consideration of applications for licences under Section 14 and Section 15 of Act 1959, the provisions of Section 13 (3) (b) can be relied upon for assimilating any "good reason" in order to grant, renew or refuse the licences, however, except under the circumstances mentioned under Section 13(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of Act, 1959. Thus to say, the licenses dealt with under Section 13 (3) (a) (i) and (ii) are classified as a distinct one so as not to attract the requirement of 'good reason' envisaged in Section 13(3)(b). Which thus also means, other than the specific circumstances made under Section 13(3)(a)(i) and (ii), in all other cases discussed **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 14 :** above, for consideration of applications for grant of licence and renewal, the provisions of Section 13(3)(b) would apply. 22. Therefore, reference made by the learned single Judge in the writ petitions as per reference order dated 15 th February, 2016 is answered affirmatively to the above extent. 23. Normally and ordinarily, after reference, writ petitions would be sent back to the writ court for consideration in accordance with law. However, fact remains, in all these cases, the applications either for grant or for renewal were declined without adhering appropriately to the provisions of Sections 13, 14 and 15 of Act, 1959 in the manner discussed above. 24. Therefore, we are of the view that instead of sending it back to the writ court, the respective impugned orders in the writ petitions passed by the statutory/appellate **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 15 :** authorities can be set aside and the applications can be directed to be reconsidered, bearing in mind the findings and observations contained as above. 25. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders i.e., Ext. P5 order dated 30.10.2015, Ext.P3 order dated 12.11.2014, Ext. P7 order dated 29.10.2015, Ext. P4 order of the District Collector, Kannur, Ext. P6 order dated 09/2015, Ext.P3 order dated 30.12.2015, Ext. P6 order dated 29.11.2014, Ext. P3 order dated 17.07.2014, Ext. P4 order dated 11.12.2015, Ext. P3 order dated 29.12.2015 and Ext. P20 Government Order dated 30.01.2016 respectively in the sequence of the captioned writ petitions and any consequential orders passed on remand by the appellate authority, and direct the primary authority under the Arms Act, 1959 to reconsider all the applications taking **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 16 :** into account the findings and observations contained above, at the earliest and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.” 4. On the basis of Ext.P3 judgment, the primary authority, the District Magistrate passed Ext.P4 order by which the applications of the petitioners were again rejected stating the very same reason that the petitioners could not prove threat to their lives or properties. A reading of Ext.P3 makes it clear that the 2[nd] respondent has not adverted to the directions of this Court in Ext.P3 judgment. Ext.P4 order of the 2[nd] respondent cannot therefore be sustained. In the said circumstances, Ext.P4 is quashed and the 2[nd] respondent is directed to take up the applications of **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 17 :** the petitioners for renewal of arms licenses afresh and pass orders in the light of the directions in Ext.P3 judgment, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. **Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 18 :** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40434/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-08-2014 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-12-2015 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR** **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15-02-2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. 1242/2016** **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTED ORDER DATED 11-102022 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11-08-2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.24656 OF 2012** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS** **EXT.R2(A) D2(B)59477/10/R DATED 14.03.2011 BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR AND TYPED COPY** **EXT.R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D2B/45889/2022/R DATED 05.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR.** **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 19 :** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34357/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.7.2014 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2014 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR.** **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.2.2022 IN WP(C) NO.37989/2015.** **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTED ORDER DATED 19.9.2022 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 23.5.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.8.2015 IN WP(C) NO.24656 OF 2012.** - **RESPONDENT EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT R2(A) D2(B)59477/10/R DATED 14-03-2011 BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF ,THRISSUR AND TYPED COPY** **EXHIBIT R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO D2B/45889/2022/R DATED 05/09/2022 ISSUED BY THE DISTRCT POLICE CHIEF,THRISSUR** **WP(C) Nos.40434/2022, 34357/2022, 41975/2022 : 20 :** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41975/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 0207-2014 OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR.** **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-12-2015 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15-02-2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.2348/2016.** **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTED ORDER DATED 11-102022 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-1-2014 IN W.P.(C) NO. 38165/2010 REPORTED IN 2015 (1) KLT 41.** ## **RESPONDENT EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT R2(A) D2(B)59477/10/R DATED 14-03-2011 BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF ,THRISSUR AND TYPED COPY EXHIBIT R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO D2B/45889/2022/R DATED 05/09/2022 ISSUED BY THE DISTRCT POLICE CHIEF,THRISSUR**