IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 32422 of 2010(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JOPPU JOHN,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.T.J.JOHN,THARAPPEL HOUSE,ARIMANAL PO, KALIKAVU,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,KERALA, PIN 676 525. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SRI.K.T.THOMAS. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,MALAPPURAM-1. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.32422/2010 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 25/04/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR, NILAMBUR. P2: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 09/07/2008 SUBMITTED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. P3: COIPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 26/02/2009 SUBMITTED BY DRO, NILAMBUR. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 05/03/2009 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13/07/2010 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.32422 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he made an application to the 3rd respondent for a gun license. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P1, the Tahsildar recommended grant of license. Ext.P2 is stated to be the communication issued by the Superintendent of of Police , Malappuram who also recommended to grant license to the petitioner. However, in Ext.P3 report, the Divisional Forest officer, Nilambur recommended rejection of the application stating that the property of the petitioner is situated within five kms from reserved forest. 2. In the light of the reports so obtained, the 3rd respondent considered the application and passed Ext.P4 order rejecting the application entirely relying on Ext.P3 recommendation of the Divisional Forest officer and without any further discussion on the issue. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. Second respondent rejected the appeal by Ext.P5 order on the premise that the request of the W.P (C) No.32422 of 2010 2 petitioner was to transfer the license granted in favour of his father. It is in these circumstances, petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P4 and P5 orders. 3. Section 13 of the Arms Act deals with grant of licences. As per the said provision, once an application has been received by the licensing authority, the licensing authority shall call for the report from the nearest Police Station and the officer has to sent his report. Sub section (2A) enables the licensing authority to consider the application in the light of the reports so obtained and after conducting such enquiry as he deems it necessary, the licensing authority has to pass an order in writing either granting or refusing to grant licence. 4. A reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act show that on receipt of the application, it is for the licensing authority to call for the reports from the Police officer from the nearest police station and conduct such further enquiry as he deems necessary and thereafter pass orders on the application duly adverting to the materials available before him. Being a quasi judicial power, the W.P (C) No.32422 of 2010 3 order should reflect due application of mind. The position of law in this behalf has also been explained by this court in the judgment in Ganesh Prasad Vs. Board of Revenue [ 2005 (2) KLT 645]. 5. The question is whether Ext.P4 order passed by the 3rd respondent, the licensing authority meets the standards laid down in Section 13 of the Act. A reading of Ext.P4 discloses that the licensing authority has acted and rejected the application made by the petitioner entirely relying upon Ext.P3 report of the Divisional Forest Officer and without any application of mind or adverting to any other materials that were available. In my view, Ext.P4 order discloses that the licensing authority has surrendered his discretion available under Section 13 of the Act to the Divisional Forest officer and for that reason Ext.P4 order passed by the licensing authority cannot be sustained. 6. In so far as Ext.P5 order passed by the appellate authority, the Land Revenue Commissioner, is concerned while the application of the petitioner was for a fresh gun license, the appellate authority has appreciated W.P (C) No.32422 of 2010 4 the case of the petitioner as an application for transfer of license already granted to his father . Therefore the appellate authority has misdirected himself and in that view, the appellate order passed also is unsustainable. 7. Therefore I quash Exts.P4 and P5 and remit the matter back to the 3rd respondent who shall consider the matter afresh in the light of Section 13 of the Arms Act and in the light of this judgment. This shall be done with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge W.P (C) No.32422 of 2010 5