V. T. Aboobacker v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram; Additional District Magistrate, Kozhikode; District Police Chief, Kozhikode

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **THURSDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024/10TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 20913 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER:** **V.T. ABOOBACKER, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. MOOSA MASTER ASHRAF MANZIL, (VALIYATHODIYIL) HOUSE NO. 26/1891 (36/2062), THIRUVANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673029** **BY ADVS. T.G.RAJENDRAN T.R.TARIN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001** - **2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673571** - **3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673571** ## **BY SMT.REKHA C NAIR, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.20913/2023 : 2 : ## **N. NAGARESH, J.** ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` ## W.P.(C) No.20913 of 2023 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` _Dated this the 29[th] day of February, 2024_ ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The petitioner, who is member of National Rifle Shooters Association, seeks to quash Ext.P6 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner and to direct the Land Revenue Commissioner to reconsider Ext.P4 appeal in the light of various decisions of this Court and to reinstate the Arms licence issued by the 2[nd] respondent to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner states that he is holding Arms licence No.2080/KDE for self protection. The licence was issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Kozhikode on 05.07.1995. 3. The petitioner states that on 11.03.1999, the petitioner sought renewal of licence. The Additional District W.P.(C) No.20913/2023 : 3 : Magistrate, however, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner proposing to cancel the licence. In spite of giving reply, the Arms licence was cancelled. 4. The petitioner filed appeal before the 1[st] respondent-Land Revenue Commissioner. The District Police Chief submitted a report that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.236/2001 under Section 10 of the UAPA. It was based on the said report, the licensing authority rejected the petitioner's application on 23.02.2006. 5. The petitioner states that the crime against the petitioner was quashed by this Court. The petitioner therefore sought reinstatement of his cancelled licence. The application was, however, rejected. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority remitted the matter back to the 2[nd] respondent. But, the 2[nd] respondent again rejected the application for reinstatement of his licence holding that the District Police Chief has not made a positive recommendation. W.P.(C) No.20913/2023 : 4 : 6. The petitioner again filed appeal. The 1[st] respondent-Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as per Ext.P1 order dated 30.10.2015 holding that there is no proof on record to show that the appellant faces threat to his life or property. The petitioner filed yet another appeal. After considering the contentions of the petitioner and the report submitted by the District Police Chief, the 1[st] respondent once again dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P6 order dated 30.05.2023. In Ext.P6, it was stated that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner states that Ext.P6 order is wrong and contrary to law. The respondents should have noted that the licence issued to the petitioner is for his self protection. There is no instance of misuse of Arms licence by the petitioner. Arms licence was denied to the petitioner initially due to his involvement in a crime. The said crime was quashed by this Court. Even otherwise, renewal of Arms licence cannot be refused solely due to pendency of a criminal case. W.P.(C) No.20913/2023 : 5 : 8. The respondents cannot reject an application for renewal of licence on speculations. The reasons for such refusal shall be recorded. Ext.P6 order lacks clarity. Ext.P6 does not contain tangible reasons. 9. The 2[nd] respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 2[nd] respondent submitted that when the petitioner applied for renewal of Arms licence on 11.03.1999, the District Police Chief objected the renewal, as the petitioner was office bearer of an Islamic Fundamentalist Organisation called WAMY. A notice was issued to the petitioner against the adverse remarks and the petitioner explained that he was only a labour supervisor under the Organisation WAMY. The District Police Chief, however, reiterated his objection. When renewal was declined, the petitioner filed appeal and the 1[st] respondent remanded the matter back to the licensing authority as per Ext.R2(b) for fresh disposal. The petitioner was heard again and his application was rejected. The petitioner's appeal is also rejected as per Ext.P6 order dated 30.05.2023. The writ W.P.(C) No.20913/2023 : 6 : petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed, contended the 2[nd] respondent. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents. 11. The petitioner is a member of National Rifle Shooters Association. He held Arms licence for self protection since 05.07.1995. In the year 1999, the petitioner applied for renewal of licence. However, the petitioner's licence was cancelled. In appeal, the cancellation was set aside and the matter was remitted back. The cancellation was again upheld holding that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.236/2001 under Section 10 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The rejection was in the year 2006. 12. Subsequently, when this Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the petitioner again submitted an application on 19.10.2009. The 2[nd] respondent declined to reinstate the cancelled licence. On W.P.(C) No.20913/2023 : 7 : 11.11.2014, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1[st] respondent. As the appeal was not considered, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.26316/2015. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing to consider the appeal within three months. The 1[st] respondent rejected the appeal stating that the petitioner does not face threat to his life or property. 13. The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 order filing W.P.(C) No.35111/2015. The said writ petition was heard by a Division Bench along with connected matters and was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment. In Ext.P2 judgment, the Division Bench of this Court held that for consideration of applications for licence under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arms Act, 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 the Act, 1959. The Division Bench held that the licences dealt under Section 13(3)(a)(i) and (ii) are classified as distinct one so as not to attract the requirement of good W.P.(C) No.20913/2023 : 8 : reason. 14. Pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment, the petitioner was again heard. However, the respondent rejected the application stating that the petitioner has not brought in any instance to establish that there exists a threat to the life or property of the petitioner. The 2[nd] respondent also noted that police also has filed report stating that licence of the petitioner need not be renewed. 15. The petitioner filed appeal. The 1[st] respondent again rejected the appeal stating that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner. The petitioner states that the rejection goes against the law laid down by this Court in the judgment in _**Chandran Nair v. Additional District Magistrate** [2015 (1) KLT 41]._ 16. The respondents resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 2[nd] respondent in his counter affidavit stated that the petitioner had applied for renewal of Arms licence. The District Police Chief, Kozhikode City objected to the renewal on the ground that he is an office bearer of an W.P.(C) No.20913/2023 : 9 : Islamic Fundamentalist Organisation called WAMY. On the basis of the strong objection by the District Police Chief, the 2[nd] respondent cancelled the Arms licence. 17. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the 2[nd] respondent was directed to reconsider the matter. The 2[nd] respondent submitted that the licence was cancelled in the year 2000 and till date no instances of any threat to life was reported to the authorities concerned. Section 13 of the Arms Act mandated that the licensing authority shall obtain report of the police authority. The police authority did not recommend licence to the petitioner. 18. It may be noted that the petitioner was originally issued with an Arms licence. The licence was cancelled on the basis of a police report stating that the petitioner is a member of a Fundamentalist Association and is an accused in Crime No.236/2001 under Section 10 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The respondents have no case that the Fundamentalist Organisation in which the petitioner is stated to be a member, is a banned Organisation. The W.P.(C) No.20913/2023 : 10 : petitioner would assert that he is not a member of the said Association, but was an employee. It is an admitted position that the criminal proceedings related to Crime No.236/2001 was quashed by this Court. 19. However, the cancellation of licence of the petitioner has been upheld by Ext.P6 on the ground that the petitioner is not facing any threat to his life. In Ext.P6, the appellate authority has held that the petitioner has failed to establish that there is any threat to his life or property. The appellate authority held that the petitioner has not produced any documents to show that he faces threat to his life. 20. This Court has considered the question of renewal of licence of a person who is involved in a crime in the decision reported in _**Jose Kuttiyani v. Land Revenue Commissioner and others** [2015 (3) KLT 780]_ and has held that the provisions under Section 17 of the Arms Act shall not be pressed into service on the basis of pendency of a criminal case. Originally, the pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner was the reason advanced for non- W.P.(C) No.20913/2023 : 11 : renewal/reinstatement of the licence originally granted to the petitioner. 21. Furthermore, this Court has held in the judgment in _**Chandran Nair**_ (supra) that an applicant for licence or for renewal of licence under the Arms 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. In view of the law laid down by this Court, Ext.P6 order cannot stand the scrutiny of law. 22. Ext.P6 is therefore set aside. The 1[st] respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 appeal and pass appropriate orders afresh expeditiously. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/28.02.2024 W.P.(C) No.20913/2023 ## : 12 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20913/2023** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.10.2015 Exhibit P2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF W.P. (C) NO. 35111/2015 DATED 15.2.2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.6.2022 Exhibit P4 . COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17.8.2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 40520/2022 DATED 20.2.2023 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.5.2023** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **Exhibit R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19-092000 Exhibit R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO LR.A5/41881/2000/K DIS DATED 05-102001 Exhibit R2(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D3/27231/1999 DATED 28-10-2000**