Sebastian Kuruvila v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM`** ## **`THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1945`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 20481 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` SEBASTIAN KURUVILA AGED 64 YEARS THAZHAKKAL HOUSE, ANICKAD, ELAMPALLY P.O, KOTTAYAM DIST., PIN - 686503 BY ADVS. TOM JOSE (PADINJAREKARA) SUNNY JOSEPH K.T.SEBASTIAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695033 2THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE P.O, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686002 3ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686002 BY G.P., SMT. SHEEBA G. ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C) No. 20481 of 2023 : 2 : ## **VIJU ABRAHAM , J. =========================== WP(C) No. 20481 of 2023 ============================ Dated this the 3[rd] day of August, 2023** ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Exts P2 and P3 orders and a consequential direction to the 3[rd] respondent to reconsider Ext P1 application submitted by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is the holder of Gun License No. B.L.-2396/KTM/(for possessing one) 0.12 bore SBL Gun with Gun No. BE-260-2003. Petitioner was earlier holding a non-prohibited 0.22 bore Rifle No.44148 from 1990 to 2011 with Gun License No. R-457/KTM renewed from time to time. When the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of license of the said gun in the year 2011, the same was rejected based on a report by the District Police Chief that the petitioner is involved in Crime No. 277/2004 of Nedungandam Police Station. 3. Petitioner submits that it is subsequently revealed that the report was a mistaken one and that he is not involved in Crime No. 277/2004, and the accused in the said crime is some other person. Petitioner submits that he has no other criminal antecedents. After the rejection of the renewal of license of the said gun, the same was deposited at SITCO Armory in Kanjirappally and is kept in safe WP(C) No. 20481 of 2023 : 3 : custody from 2011 onwards. Thereupon petitioner submitted Ext P1 application for addition of this gun also to the existing valid Gun License No. B.L 2396/KTM. The said application was rejected by Ext P2 mainly holding that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner so as to allow the request made by the petitioner in Ext P1. Eventhough an appeal was filed it was also rejected by Ext P3 stating the very same reason. 4. Petitioner submits that, going by Section 3(2) of the Arms Act, the petitioner is entitled to having in possession or carry at any time more than two firearms. Petitioner also relies on Rule 18 of the Arms Rules 2016 wherein in the 4[th] proviso it is also indicated that an applicant could posses two firearms. Petitioner further relying on the judgment in _**Chandran Nair v. Additional District Magistrate [2015 (1) KLT 41]**_ contended that the rejection of the request of the petitioner made in Ext P1 holding that there is no serious threat to the life of the petitioner cannot be a valid reason for rejection of the application. Petitioner also relies on the judgment _**Jose Kuttiyany v.**_ _**Land Revenue Commission, Trivandrum and Others [2015 (3) KHC 831]**_ and also the judgment in _**Safar T.K. vs. The Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and Others reported in 2022 AIR Kerala 27**_ in support of his contention. Petitioner also submits that the issue of a gun license has been WP(C) No. 20481 of 2023 : 4 : specifically recommended by the Tahsildar as well as by SHO, Pallikathode Police Station. 5. The learned Government Pleader on the strength of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of 2[nd] respondent submits that the District Police Chief has reported that there is no need for addition of another weapon into his license as there is no security issues for him and no additional weapon is required as he has a weapon with him for self protection. Therefore, the rejection of the request made by the petitioner is perfectly in accordance with law. The learned Government Pleader further submits that as regards the present gun is concerned the application for renewal has been rejected as early as in 2011. The learned Government Pleader also relies on Section 14 of the Arms Act to contend for the position that application for gun license could be rejected when the licensing authority deem it necessary for security of the public peace or for public safety. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of parties. 7. As contended by the petitioner, going by Section 3(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Rule 18 of the Arms Rules 2016, petitioner is entitled to carry two firearms. The legal entitlement of the petitioner to have two arms is not seriously disputed in the counter affidavit or in the impugned orders. The only reason stated in the counter affidavit as well as the impugned orders is that there is no imminent threat to the life of the petitioner so as to grant license allowing the WP(C) No. 20481 of 2023 : 5 : request of the petitioner in Ext P1 application. In _**Chandran Nair’s**_ case cited supra this Court held that if the applicant feels that there is a threat to his life and property, there is no reason for the State to risk his life and property and further held that an applicant for license or for renewal of license under the Act need not establish that there exist threat to his life or property to get the license applied for or to get the existing license renewed. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment reads as follows; _“6. That apart, the protection of the life and property of the citizens is the responsibility of the State. It is only when a person apprehends that the machinery of the State may not come to his aid to protect his life and property, he/she applies for a license under the Act. The subjective satisfaction of the authorities under the Act that there is no threat to the life and property of the applicant may or may not be correct. However, when the applicant feels that there is threat to his life and property, there is no reason for the State to risk his life and property. True, the issue of licenses for possessing deadly arms should be done with great care and caution and with greater circumspection. But, that does not mean that the authorities under the Statute can act otherwise than in accordance with the Statute. If the intention is to prevent abuse of the use of the licensed weapons, adequate provisions are made in Section 14 of the Act to take care of such situations and the said objective has to be achieved in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As such, I am of the definite view that an applicant for licence or for renewal of licence under the Act need not establish that there exists threat to the life or property to get the licence applied for or to get the existing licence renewed.”_ This Court in _**Safar’s**_ case supra, the application for license was rejected on the ground that petitioner is an accused in a crime. This WP(C) No. 20481 of 2023 : 6 : Court is _**Safar’s**_ case following the judgments in _**Chandran Nair’s**_ case as well as the case in _**Jose Kuttiyany v. Land Revenue Commission, Trivandrum and Others [2015 (3) KHC, 831]**_ set aside the impugned orders and directed reconsideration of the application. This Court in _**Jose Kuttiyany’s**_ case cited supra held that to reject a licence application of the petitioner on the ground that the possession of arm license by the petitioner is detrimental to the security of the public peace, or for public safety. It is incumbent on the authorities to record a finding as to how and under what circumstances and in what manner the possession of arms license will be detrimental to the public peace, safety and security and the Court directed to renew the license inspite of the fact that the petitioner therein is involved in other crime. It is relevant to note that the renewal of license held by the petitioner in respect of the gun in question was rejected by the authorities in 2011 for the reason that a crime is pending against him. But a perusal of Ext P2 order would reveal that the said finding that petitioner is involved in Crime No. 277/2004 appears to be a wrong and that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Therefore, the rejection of renewal application of the petitioner in 2011 is also on an unsustainable ground. It is also pertinent to note that in the counter affidavit it is admitted that the Tahsildar has reported that there is no objection in adding another weapon into the applicant’s license. It is further to be WP(C) No. 20481 of 2023 : 7 : noted that there is no reason stated in the impugned orders as any of the reason stated in Section 14 of the Arms Act to reject the application of the petitioner. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the declaration of law by this Court cited above in judgment in _**Chandran Nair’s**_ case supra, _**Jose Kuttiyany’s**_ case supra as well as _**Safar’s**_ case supra, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 3[rd] respondent. Therefore, Exts P2 and P3 impugned orders are set aside with a consequential direction to the 3[rd] respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext P1 application in the light of the judgment cited supra. The petitioner would be free to submit his notes of arguments producing the copies of these judgments before the 3[rd] respondent. A final decision in this regard shall be taken in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being to the petitioner within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. **Sd/VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE** sbk/- WP(C) No. 20481 of 2023 : 8 : ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20481/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 ``` ``` Exhibit P-1TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENSE DATED 18.06.2020 WITH FILE NO. DCKTM/5754/2023-H2 RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT Exhibit P-2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DCKTM/5592/2020-H2 DATED 10.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P-3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LRA2-11217/2022 DATED 12.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ```