IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8648 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.G.BIJU,S/O.LATE GANGADHARAN,13/514, GANGA MANSION, PILLAYAMPALLAM, THENARI PO, ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD. BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. COMMISSIIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD 678 001. 4. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PALAKKAD 678 001. 5. TAHSILDAR,PALAKKAD 678 622. 6. S.I. OF POLICE,RURAL KASABA, PALAKKAD 678 622. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.8648 OF 2011(E) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T Exts.P4 and P6 orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner his father possessed a gun licence. His father expired in 2005. Thereupon he made an application for gun licence. That was rejected by Ext.P4 order of the Additional District Magistrate, Palakkad, the 3rd respondent. Appeal was filed before the 2nd respondent. That was also rejected by Ext.P6 order. It is challenging Exts.P4 and P6 that this writ petition has been filed. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he owes immovable properties adjacent to reserve forest and there is likelihood of the crops being damaged by the wild animals and therefore the rejection of his application by Ext.P4 and Ext.P6 orders are illegal. 4. However, Ext.P4 order of the 3rd respondent shows that the Divisional Forest Officer recommended to decline the petitioner's application from wild life protection point of view. It is also stated that the Tahsildar Palakkad reported that the WPC.No. 8648/2011 :2 : petitioner is an employee of the ICICI bank and is working in Bangalore. It is also stated that despite repeated opportunities were given by the Tahsildar to the petitioner to produce the documents, neither the petitioner produced the documents nor did he appear for personal hearing before the Tahsildar. It is based on the above materials that the 3rd respondent rejected the application of the petitioner in Ext.P4 and the appellate authority also in Ext.P6 order. 5. On the materials produced before this court, there is nothing to conclude that the above view taken by the 2nd and 3rd respondents is illegal for any reason. Although the counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is willing to produce the documents before the Tahsildar in my view, such opportunity ought to have been availed of by the petitioner at the time when the application was considered by the Tahsildar or at least the matter was considered by the respondents. Since, such an opportunity was not availed of by the petitioner, it is too late for the petitioner to seek indulgence of this court for getting Exts.P4 and P6 orders invalidated. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE WPC.No. 8648/2011 :3 :