IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 WP(C).No. 34491 of 2011(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PAUL ANTONY, S/O.LATE ANTONY, AGED 51, PERUMBILLICHIRA, CHELAD.P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-PIN-686 681. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY SMT.K.S.SUMITHA SMT.S.K.SREEKALA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN-695 033. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM-PIN-682 025. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.34491/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/09/2011. P2 COPY OF THE ARMS LICENSE OF PETITIONER'S FATHER BEARING NO.42/MVP. P3 COPY OF THE ARMS DEPOSIT RECEIPT ISSUED BY M/S.T.JACOB & CO. DATED 26/07/07. P4 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P5 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23/03/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 34491 of 2011 J ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner made Ext.P4 application for an arms licence. The “need of licence” indicated in the application was “for protection of crops”. Despite no objection reported by the Tahsildar and the police, his application was rejected by the District Magistrate as per Ext.P5. Petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent. That appeal was considered and rejected by Ext.P1 order, operative portion of which reads as under:- “Verified the records and heard the party and the following orders are passed: The appellant has not established that there is any serious threat to his life which warrant the possession of a weapon. There is nothing on record to prove the existence of such a threat. It appears that he wants the licence only because he has inherited the W.P.(C) No.34491/2011 : 2 : weapon from his late father. This is not sufficient cause to grant a licence. Hence, the appeal is dismissed and the orders of the District Collector upheld.” 2. Reading of the order shows that, though the application was made for the purpose of crop protection, it has been appreciated as if it was made for personal protection. Thus, the application has not been considered in the proper perspective and for that reason itself, the appellate order deserves to be set aside. I set aside Ext.P1 order passed by the first respondent, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P5 and direct that the appeal be reconsidered with notice to the petitioner and fresh orders be passed, at any rate, within three months from the date 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) aks/22/12