Kerala High CourtM.C.Thomas vs The District Collector on 24 April, 2013IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT:

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

    TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/20168TH BHADRA, 1938

                       WP(C).No. 28785 of 2016 (W)
                       ---------------------------------------------


      PETITIONER:

         M.C.THOMAS
         MULAKKAL HOUSE, ALOOR P.O.,
         MATTOM VIA, THRISSUR.


             BY ADVS.SRI.SAJI KURIACHAN
                    SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR

      RESPONDENTS:

     1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-680 001.

     2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
        THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685 033.


             BY GOVt. PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU.T.K.

       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                    APPENDIX IN WPC 28785/2016


PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:


EXT. P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C5-228/11/K.DIS DATED 24.4.2013

EXT. P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR.A2-43462/2013 DATED
18.12.2014

EXT. P3 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.C5-74676/13/K.DIS. DATED 30.07.2016


RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.




                            /TRUE COPY/




                                                     P.S. TO JUDGE



                       P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

                 ------------------------------------------

                 W.P.(C)No.28785 of 2016 W

                 -------------------------------------------

            Dated this the 30th day of August, 2016


                            JUDGMENTThe challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit

P3 order by which the application preferred by the

petitioner for renewal of the licence issued to him under theArms Actwas declined. It is brought to my notice that

Exhibit P3 order is passed based on a circular issued by the

Home Department of the State Government directing the

authorities under theArms Actto consider the applications

for renewal of licence only in cases where threat exists to

the life of the applicant. It is seen that the circular referred

to above also directs that the issue whether threat exists

shall be decided by the licensing authority on the basis of

police report. According to the petitioner, in so far asWPC 28785/16                    2Exhibit P3 order has been passed on the basis of the

circular issued by the Home Department of the State

Government, the remedy of appeal provided under theArms

Actagainst orders in the nature of Exhibit P3 before the

Land Revenue Commissioner is not efficacious. It is on the

said basis, the petitioner justifies the approach to this Court

challenging Exhibit P3 order.2. The explanation offered by the petitioner for not

invoking the alternative remedy available to him by way of

appeal against Exhibit P3 order is only to be accepted, for,

no purpose would be served by preferring an appeal in the

circular issued by the Government.3. Coming to the merits, this Court inChandran

Nair v. Additional District Magistrate(2015 (1) KLT 41)

has held that an applicant for licence or for renewal of

licence under theArms Actneed not establish that thereWPC 28785/16                    3exists threat to his life or property in order to get the

licence applied for or to get the existing licence renewed

and that an application for renewal can be refused only if

any one of the grounds enumerated inSection 14of the

Arms Act exists. In the light ofthe said decision, the

petitioner is entitled to succeed.In the result, the writ petition is allowed, Exhibit P3

order is quashed and first respondent is directed to

consider the application for renewal of arms licence

submitted by the petitioner afresh,         in the light of the

decision of this Court inChandran Nair(supra). This shall

be done within a period of six weeks from today.P.B.Suresh Kumar, Judge

tkv