Reji C Jacob v. District Magistrate, District Collector, Collectorate, Kottayam; District Police Chief, Collectorate, Kottayam; Land Revenue Commissioner, Office of Land Revenue Commissioner

**WP(C) NO. 15304 OF 2019** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 15TH BHADRA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 15304 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** REJI C JACOB, AGED 57 YEARS ALOTHU HOUSE, VATTAKUNNU P.O., MEENADOM, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM-686 516 BY ADV GIKKU JACOB ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 001 2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 001 3 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033 BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 15304 OF 2019** **2** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------------------W.P.(C.) No.15304 of 2019 -------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of September, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** According to the petitioner, he is an agriculturalist, who had secured several awards from the Government and private sector companies for his achievements in agricultural field. The petitioner produced Exts. P1 & P2, which are the certificates and awards received by the petitioner. Ext.P3 is a paper report about the agricultural activities of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is having two licenses for possessing a muzzle loaded and a barrel loaded license. Ext.P5 license (muzzle loaded) was issued for self/crop purpose. Ext.P4 expired on 1.12.2012. The petitioner submitted an application for renewal of Ext.P4 on 16.11.2011 itself. The same was rejected as per Ext.P5. The petitioner challenged Ext.P5 before the appellate authority with an application to condone the delay. Ext.P7 is the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P8. **WP(C) NO. 15304 OF 2019** **3** Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(C.) No. 28776/2018. This Court, as per Ext.P9 was pleased to set aside the order of the appellate authority and directed to re-consider the matter in the light of the judgment of this Court in **Chandran Nair v. Addl.District Magistrate [2015 (1) KLT 41] and Muhammed Shafi v. District Collector [2012 (1) KLT 427].** Subsequently, Ext.P10 order is passed by the appellate authority again dismissing the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P10 order is passed without following the directions in Ext.P9 judgment. The counsel submitted that the dictum laid down by this Court in **Chandran Nair's** case (supra) and **Muhammed Shafi's** case (supra) are not considered by the appellate authority. The counsel also submitted that a mere perusal of Ext.P4 licence will show that it was issued for self/crop purpose. The counsel takes me through the 1[st] page of Ext.P4. According to the counsel, when Ext.P4 is issued for **WP(C) NO. 15304 OF 2019** **4** self/crop and the petitioner submitted an application to renew the same, the licensing authority revoked the license itself. The counsel submitted that when an application for renewal is submitted, the relevant provision which is applicable is Sec.15 of the Arms Act and for revocation, it is Sec.14 of the Act. The licensing authority has to consider the renewal application in the light of Sec.15 of the Arms Act. The counsel also contended that the finding in Ext.P10 that since the petitioner is having another license, a second license for the same purpose is not necessary, is unsustainable. The counsel submitted that the petitioner obtained the barrel loaded armed license for self protection. The petitioner want renewal of Ext.P4 license for the purpose of his agricultural activities like crop protection. The counsel submitted that the finding in Ext.P10 order is unsustainable. 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P4 license is issued in Form No.3. Form No.3 license is usually issued for self protection. The Government Pleader submitted that the first sentence in form No.3 itself says that the license is for the acquisition, possession and carrying of **WP(C) NO. 15304 OF 2019** **5** arms or ammunition for sport/protection/display. The Government Pleader submitted that, simply because the officer concerned mentioned in Ext.P4 as self/crop, it cannot be treated as a license for agricultural purposes. The Government Pleader also submitted that no documents are produced by the petitioner to show that the petitioner is doing agricultural activities and a gun license is necessary for the same to protect the crop. 5. I perused Ext.P10 order in detail. I think there is some confusion regarding the license issued to the petitioner, as per Ext.P4 itself. According to the Government Pleader, in Form No.3, the license is usually issued for sports/protection/display. But in Ext.P4, it is clearly stated that license is issued for 'self/crop', after scoring off 'sports and display'. It is true that Government Pleader contended based on para No.9 of the counter affidavit that the crop protection license is granted in Form No.4 (old Form No.5) under Rule 35 of the Arms Rules, 2016. Whatever that may be in Ext.P4, after scoring off 'sports/display', it is stated that the license is issued for self/crop. The petitioner wanted to renew the license to **WP(C) NO. 15304 OF 2019** **6** protect his crop. The petitioner submit that he is already having a gun license for his personal protection. I think this aspect is not considered by the appellate authority, while disposing Ext.P10. Moreover, the appellate authority, by a single word, observed that the dictum laid down in **Chandran Nair's** case (supra) and **Muhammed Shafi's** case (supra) is not applicable. According to me, a re-consideration by the appellate authority is necessary, in the facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner is free to produce documents to show that he is doing agricultural activities and he is in need of a gun license to protect his crops. The appellate authority will consider that document also, while re-considering the appeal. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner : - 1) Ext.P10 order is set aside. - 2) The petitioner is free to produce additional documents to substantiate his case, that he is in need of a gun license to protect his crop. - 3) The appellate authority will also consider the dictum laid down by this Court in **Chandran Nair's** case (supra) and **Muhammed Shafi's** case (supra). **WP(C) NO. 15304 OF 2019** **7** 4) The appellate authority will give an opportunity of hearing also to the petitioner. The 3[rd] respondent will re-consider the appeal filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5) All the contentions of the petitioner in this writ petition are left open, including the contention that as per Sec.3 of the Arms Act, the petitioner can possess more than one gun license, at a time. SD/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS **WP(C) NO. 15304 OF 2019** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15304/2019** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AWARD| ||RECEIVED BY THE PETITIOENR DATED| ||07.06.2014| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF KARSHAKA| ||AWARD RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN| ||KERALA KARSHAKAN DAILY REGARDING THE| ||EFFORTS OF THE PETITIONER IN AGRICULTURE| ||ACTIVITIES| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE GUN LICENCE ISSUED TO THE| ||PETITIONER FOR LIFE PROTECTION AND CROP| ||PROTECTION| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H3-54871/11K.DIS| ||DATED 30.8.13 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.3.2017| ||IN W.P(C) NO.39473/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE| ||COURT| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED| ||BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.2.2018| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LRS(2)-| ||9530/18DATED 25.6.2018 ISSUED BY 3RD| ||RESPONDENT| |EXHIBIT P9|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2018| |EXHIBIT P10|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.3.2019 BY| ||THE 3RD RESPONDENT|