IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3023 of 2011(C) --------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- JACOB T. KOSHY VAIDHYAN, THENGUMVILAYIL, THEVALAKKARA PO, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI. MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM - 691 013. 4. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM - 691 013. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM - 691 013. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 3023 of 2011 C ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was granted Arms licence No.1/92/KNR for possessing one DBBL-12 bore gun. The licence was renewed periodically and Ext.P6 is the order dated 03-02- 2007, issued by the second respondent, renewing the licence on the last occasion. On expiry of the said renewed licence, petitioner again submitted his application for renewal. 2. On that application, Ext.P2 report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police, stating that there is no threat for his agriculture crops from wild animals and, therefore, there is no need to renew the arms licence. Acting entirely upon Ext.P2 and without conducting any enquiry of his own, the Additional District Magistrate issued Ext.P3 order, refusing renewal of licence. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the view taken by the ADM in Ext.P3 is unsustainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3023/2011 : 2 : Ganesh Prasad Vs. Board of Revenue (LR) [2005 (2) KLT 645]. 3. Be that as it may, petitioner filed an appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner and that appeal was rejected by Ext.P5 order. In Ext.P5 order, it is stated that there is nothing in the records to show that the crops are suspectable to attack by wild animals which necessitates holding of a weapon. It is on this ground, the appeal has been rejected. 4. Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that, in Ext.P6 order issued in 2007, the requirement to hold the weapon for protection of his crops has been clearly found and that in the absence of any change of situation, the second respondent was not justified in taking the view as is reflected in Ext.P5. It is also the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that, if the second respondent had called upon the petitioner, he would have produced materials to substantiate his contention that he requires the weapon. W.P.(C) No.3023/2011 : 3 : 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am inclined to think that the matter needs re-examination. This is for the reason that in Ext.P5, no reference is made to Ext.P6 order or that the petitioner was called upon to produce any material to justify his requirement. In that view of the matter, in order to enable the second respondent to re-examine the appeal filed by the petitioner, I quash Ext.P5. It is directed that the second respondent will issue notice to the petitioner, hear him and pass orders in the matter, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge