Ravi Jacob v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **WEDNESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 9026 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **RAVI JACOB, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. ADV. JACOB STEPHEN, VALANJATHURUTHIL HOUSE, PAZHAVANGADI P.O., RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE SRI.MANJUNATH MENON SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.R.GITHESH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, ELECTION DEPARTMENT, KERALA LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 3 ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NIRVACHAN SADAN, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.** W.P.(C) Nos.9026, 9037 & 9049 of 2019 2 - **5 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **6 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RANNY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R1 & R4 TO R6 BY SMT. VINITHA B., GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 & R3 BY SRI. MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, STANDING COUNSEL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).9037/2019, WP(C).9049/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) Nos.9026, 9037 & 9049 of 2019 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The captioned writ petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking direction to the respondents not to compel the petitioners to deposit their licensed arm in violation of the Circular issued by the Election Commission of India dated 01.09.2009, in respect of impounding of licensed arms during the elections. Case projected by the petitioners is that, the local Police officers are calling the petitioners over telephone and directing them to surrender the arm, which is against the Circular of the Election Commission of India, issued as per the direction of the Bombay High Court, in order to avoid unnecessary harassment and impounding of arm. 2. As per the Circular issued by the Election Commission of India, parameters are prescribed and stipulated, enabling the Screening Committee constituted under the Circular to review and assess the case of each and every licence holder in accordance with the prevalent State laws, and where they consider it essential are impounded in order to ensure maintenance of law and order for conduct of free and fair elections. Case of the petitioners is that, W.P.(C) Nos.9026, 9037 & 9049 of 2019 4 overlooking the prescriptions under the said Circular, the local Police Officers have no power to direct the licensed arm holders to surrender the same. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India, and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 4. The basic contention put forth by the petitioners is that, there is no power vested with the local Police Officers to direct the petitioners to surrender the arm in view of the peremptory stipulations contained under the Circular, 2009. It is also pointed out that, the Screening Committee constituted thereunder is duty bound to follow the stipulations contained under the Circular, and the said Screening Committee is also not empowered thereunder directing the arm-holder to surrender the arm. But, it can only be done by reviewing the situation, and only in required cases, impounding can be directed. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that, there are thousands of licensed arm holders and the election processes have advanced, disabling the Screening Committee to review each and W.P.(C) Nos.9026, 9037 & 9049 of 2019 5 every case, without calling for any representation or applications from the licensed arm holders, who are claiming the benefits under Circular, 2009. 6. After evaluating the situation, I find force in the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. However, fact remains, as per the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Rules constituted thereunder, the licensing authority is vested with powers to direct an arm-holder to surrender the arm under any specified circumstances. However, in order to avoid unnecessary harassment and disabling the arm-holder to keep the arm, it was directed by the Bombay High Court to issue guidelines for the purpose. As per the provisions of Circular, 2009, as pointed out above, review is to be made by the Screening Committee, after the elections are announced and before the notification. Anyhow, the election is advanced from the date of announcement and notifications are issued. Therefore, if the Screening Committee is directed to review each and every case, especially when the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police are the members of the Screening Committee, it is almost impracticable. W.P.(C) Nos.9026, 9037 & 9049 of 2019 6 7. Moreover, the issue was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.9933 of 2009 and connected case, and held that the deposit of licensed arms should be guided by the Circular issued by the Election Commission of India. This Court has also held in ' _**Joseph v. District Collector**_ ' [2019 (1) KLT 1034] that the evaluation is to be done in accordance with the stipulations contained under the Circular. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners during deliberations submitted that, they are prepared to file applications before the Screening Committee, in order to evaluate the licences in accordance with the Circular, 2009. Taking into account that aspect and assimilating other factual and legal situations, petitioners are given the liberty to file suitable applications before the respective Screening Committee and the Screening Committee will be at liberty to take decision in accordance with law, and in terms of the Circular, 2009, at the earliest, and at any rate, within a week from the date of receipt of application from the petitioners. W.P.(C) Nos.9026, 9037 & 9049 of 2019 7 The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. **Sd/-** **SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE** St/28.03.2019 W.P.(C) Nos.9026, 9037 & 9049 of 2019 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9026/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PETITIONER'S LICENSE NO. 02/2008/III/RNI. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 01-09-2009 ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA.** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2011 IN W.P(C) NO. 10598 OF 2009 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE St/-