IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 23030 of 2010(C) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SANTHOSH THOMAS, MATTAKKATTU HOUSE, AYTHALA.P.O., RANNI, PATHANMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 039. 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 506. 3. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 041. R1 To R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 23030 of 2010 C ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was licenced to possess a 12 Bore SBBL gun which was valid till 07-12-2010. According to him, on 25-04-2010, during the night hours, the gun and certain other valuables were stolen from his house. He reported the matter to the police and a crime was registered and Ext.P1 is the FIR. Despite investigation, the gun could not be traced out. 2. Meanwhile, the petitioner applied to the second respondent to permit him to possess another gun on the same licence. According to the petitioner, on being so directed, Ext.P4 application was also made. The application was rejected by Ext.P5 order. Appeal filed before the third respondent is also rejected by Ext.P6 order. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 3. The reason stated in Ext.P5 order is that the petitioner failed to protect the gun and that it is not prudent to permit him to purchase another gun as it is not certain whether the petitioner had transferred his licenced gun to somebody surreptitiously or WPC.23030/10 : 2 : whether the gun has fallen into some undesirable hands. This reason is reiterated by the appellate authority also. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reasons stated in Ext.P5 order and reiterated in Ext.P6 order do not satisfy the requirements of Section 17(3)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. 4. A reading of Section 17(3)(a) shows that it is open to the licencing authority to cancel the licence, if the licencing authority concludes, for any reason, that the licensee is unfit to hold the licence under the Act. A reading of Exts.P5 and P6 orders shows that the licencing authority held that it is not prudent to permit the petitioner to purchase a gun, as there is a possibility of the petitioner would have transferred the licenced gun to somebody surreptitiously or that the gun would have fallen into some undesirable hands. Thus, in essence, the conclusion of the licencing authority is that the petitioner is unfit to hold the licence. This view has been endorsed by the appellate authority also. In my view, the reason assigned by the licencing authority falls squarely within the provisions of Section 17(3)(a) of the Act and, therefore, there is absolutely no substance in the contention raised WPC.23030/10 : 3 : by the counsel. 5. When this matter came up for orders before this Court on 23-07-2010, the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit stating the grounds on which he needs a gun for self protection. Accordingly, he has filed affidavit dated 28-07-2010, paragraphs 3 and 4 of which read as under:- “ 3. It is respectfully submitted that my brother is conducting 'Samson Armoury' who is an authorised arms and ammunition dealer having branches at Ranny, Kottayam, Kollam and Kattappana. I am looking after the shop at Kattappana. I was having the licence bearing number 3/2003/111 Ranny for possessing gun from 8-12-2003 onwards. The above licence was periodically extended. The above licence was cancelled by the 2nd respondent by virtue of Ext.P5 order. 4. It is respectfully submitted that as a person who is looking after the business of the dealership of arms and ammunitions, I have to deal with various guns for the purpose of the sales and service. If the above acts are done by me without a valid license, it will prejudicially affect my job. Moreover, if any antisocial WPC.23030/10 : 4 : element comes to my shop and forcibly takes any weapon kept there, I have to promptly act to avoid unforeseen incidents from happening. It is further submitted that I am a resident of Ranny which is very close to Ozhuvampara Forest Area under the Karikulam Forest Range. I am having cultivations such as Rubber and other plantations in my property where I am residing. I have to protect the above from the attack of wild animals.” 6. In my view, the averments contained in the affidavit are vague and unsatisfactory and do not substantiate the request of the petitioner. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge