IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23667 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- A.K.SANTHOSH, ARAKKATHARA HOUSE, NAMBYAPURAM ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE (G) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 1. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -33 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 030. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23667/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M3-70828/2007 DATED 29.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER LR (A5) 50837/2010 DATED 16.7.11 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23667 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 order passed by the District Magistrate declining renewal of arms licence to the petitioner and Ext.P3 order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner rejecting the appeal filed. 3. A reading of these orders show that the only reason stated by the petitioner seeking renewal of his licence was that he is a businessman in the Cochin city and that there are transactions of huge amounts of money. The issue of the personal threat to life of the petitioner has been considered by the District Magistrate and in Ext.P2 order, it is stated thus; “The applicant and enquiry officer were called for a hearing on 10/3/2010 and in the hearing it was convinced that there is no threat to the life of the applicant or other reasons for renewing the licence. Hence the application submitted by Sri.A.K.Santhosh, Arakkathara House, Nambyapuram Road, Palluruthy, Kochi is hereby rejected and the licence is cancelled with immediate effect”. 4. Therefore, a reading of Ext.P2 discloses that the WPC No. 23667/11 :2 : petitioner could not satisfy the District Magistrate that there was any threat to the life of the petitioner justifying renewal of the licence in his favour. There is absolutely no material to conclude that this finding is erroneous for any reason. 5. Similarly in Ext.P3 order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner also, the Commissioner has considered the case of the petitioner regarding the requirement of the licence and has rejected the claim. A reading of Ext.P3 order also shows that the Land Revenue Commissioner has duly adverted the claim of the petitioner in the light of the reasons stated and was not satisfied that there is any justification for the claim. 6. In the circumstances, I do not find anything erroneous in the orders. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp