IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23022 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. C.J.VIJU, S/O.C.D.JOSE (LATE) CHIRAYATH HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P.O., SOUTH MUNAYAM, THRISSUR-26. 2. P.A.MOHAMMED HAZEEM, MANAPPAT (H), MADAVANA P.O., KODUNGALLUR. 3. P.T.KOCHUPAUL, PADINJAKKARA (H), PARIYARAM P.O., CHALAKKUDY (VIA), THRISSUR-21. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJI KURIACHAN SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR-680 001. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23022 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 28.12.09 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. P2 (a) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.10.2010 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. P2 (b) COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14.6.2011 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. P2 (c) COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.25.9.2010 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER P3 COPY OF THE DIVISION BENCH ORDER DTD. 17.8.98 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 23022 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The grievance raised in this writ petition pertain to the period for which the Arms license has been renewed in favour of the petitioners as per Exhibits P2 (a), (b), and (c). According to the petitioners they were granted Arms license entitling them to hold gun for their safety and protection. On expiry of the period of their licenses, they applied for its renewal and accordingly Exhibits P2 (a), (b), and (c), renewal has been granted. However, in the licenses, the period of renewal has been specified as two years. 3. Petitioners contend that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 15 (1) of the Arms Act 1959, license granted will continue to be in force for a period of three years from the date of its grant. Therefore, according to them the renewal granted for a period of two years is illegal, particularly in the absence of any reasons for reducing the license period. W.P(C) No. 23022 of 2011 2 Petitioners also rely on Exhibit P3 judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1664/1998 in support of their contentions. 4. Section 15(1) of the Arms Act provides that, license once granted will remain for a period of three years. Proviso to the said Section, authorizes the licensing authority to grant license for a short period. But the licensing authority is obliged to record reasons for granting such license for a shorter period. In this case it is evident from Exhibits P2 (a), (b), and (c), that no reasons have been assigned by the licensing authority for confining the license only for a period of two years. 5. In such a situation petitioner is entitled to direction from this Court, requiring the first respondent to issue revised orders, specifying the period of grant for three years from the date of its renewal . This the first respondent shall do within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE rkc //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE